Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords].

Considered; Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time.

COMMONS REGISTRATION (EAST SUSSEX) BILL Lords.

Read a Second time, and committed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Subsidence (Insurance)

Mr. Illsley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from British Coal regarding the refusal of insurance companies to insure properties previously affected by coal mining subsidence.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): British Coal has confirmed that from time to time it has been approached by individuals saying that they are unable to get insurance because their property has suffered subsidence damage. In such cases, British Coal has, in general, offered to contact the insurance company to spell out the extent of its remedial obligations in respect of any subsidence damage arising from coal mining.

Mr. Illsley: I thank the Minister for that reply. He and I debated the matter on the Adjournment recently, but since that time I have been made aware of two further cases in which insurance cover has been refused—one in respect of subsidence damage that occurred 30 years ago and the other where the damage needed repairing by means of decoration only. Will he maintain pressure on the insurance companies, through the Association of British Insurers, to ensure that they are aware that such properties are usually sound properties and a good insurable risk?

Mr. Eggar: I will certainly undertake to continue to do that. Of, course, as we know, almost all those properties are in any case covered by the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently had a constituency case in which insurance was not so much refused as charged at a much higher rate than it otherwise should have been? In normal circumstances,

my constituent would have been able to get a much reduced rate. Is my hon. Friend further aware that there is therefore considerable concern that the coal mines in my constituency, which have been there for some years, have caused a problem in that regard?

Mr. Eggar: I understand the problem, and I think it fair to say that, when examined in detail, most cases arise from a misunderstanding by the insurance companies of the provisions of the 1991 Act. If my hon. Friend lets me have details, I will see what I can do to pursue the case.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: But why is not the Minister getting tough on insurance companies that run seminars about exploiting the loopholes and avoid meeting the legitimate claims of customers?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman loves going for the cheap headline. He would have done both his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and me a bit more courtesy if he had been present to listen to the detailed Adjournment debate on the subject.

Small Businesses

Mr. Streeter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on measures he plans to assist small businesses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of Business Links to provide high-quality business support across the country.

Mr. Streeter: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that many businesses in the west country are well served by the low interest rates, low inflation and freedom from the job-destroying social chapter that the Government have brought about? Does he agree that what many small businesses now want is the early introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill to blast away much of the red tape that is ruining their lives? Is not it a great pity that Opposition Members continue to delay and oppose that measure?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I entirely agree with him. The House debated the Bill yesterday, and I hope that it will complete its stages tomorrow.

Mrs. Mahon: One traditional small business is the British pub. What will the Minister do to stop what is happening to it? What will he do to stop cheap imports, investigate the leases that are doing so much damage and prevent rents from going through the roof? Pubs are an endangered species, and the Minister is responsible.

Mr. McLoughlin: In fact, the brewing industry has invested a tremendous amount in new pubs—as the hon. Lady would see if she visited a few.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Industry as a whole is immensely grateful to the Government for the steps that they have taken in respect of Business Links and other measures. More export credit is now available to smaller


businesses, for instance. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, of the press release issued today by the Engineering Employers Federation? He certainly should be, as one of his colleagues from the Department was present for the federation's breakfast-time briefing.
According to the federation, industry believes that moves such as a further improvement in export credit and 100 per cent. capital allowances would benefit industry immensely, giving it the fillip that it needs so desperately in order to contribute further to the improvement of the British economy.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about Business Links. He has been fortunate, in that one of the first Business Links in the country serves his own constituency. I am glad that he recognises the important role that such links will play in providing for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. It is, I think, no secret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to publish a White Paper on competitiveness in the near future.

Mr. Fatchett: The Forum of Private Business estimates that small firms are owed £50,000 million in late payments, and every survey of small firms suggests that late payment is their key problem. When will the Government act, and introduce a statutory right to interest on late payment? Why is theirs the only major political party that does not support such a measure? Is it simply because they are so in hock to large companies and other contributors to their funds that they cannot help small business?

Mr. McLoughlin: That is absolute rubbish. We issued a consultation paper last November; the hon. Gentleman just needs to wait a little while.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as small manufacturing businesses are capital intensive —in contrast to small service industries—the abolition of capital gains tax would have a particularly beneficial effect on the unquoted manufacturing sector? As a Minister in the sponsoring Department, and as one who cares passionately about these matters, will my hon. Friend ask the Department's economists to investigate? There is now a growing suspicion that the abolition of capital gains tax could provide the biggest job creation programme that the country has seen in 20 years.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am always willing to consider the points that he makes, but he will appreciate that his question is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will probably be one of the first of many Budget submissions to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Gas Industry

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Director General of Ofgas to discuss consumer protection.

Mr. Eggar: On Monday.

Mr. Lloyd: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Ofgas the British Gas meter replacement programme, about which I have asked him before? Specifically, will he confirm that Ofgas has now agreed that British Gas can complete the programme by 1996, a year later than originally planned? Can he justify an

arrangement that will mean consumers paying more for gas that they do not actually receive, and the loss of jobs in the meter manufacturing industry?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the director general, but, prompted by the hon. Gentleman's question, I will be sure to do so.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that gas consumers will be protected from any real increase in gas prices, at least until 1997?

Mr. Eggar: The price cap that currently applies to British Gas—RPI minus 4—will continue to apply. My hon. Friend will have had a chance to study the consultation document, and will know of the ways in which we are trying to deal with the various transitional issues surrounding, in particular, the elderly and disabled.

Mr. O'Neill: After the general election in 1997 or 1998, will the Minister still be in a position to guarantee that there will be no losers? He will be aware that the regulator, the managing director of Alliance Gas and the director of the Gas Consumers Council have all said that there will be losers as a consequence of what was announced this week. Can the Minister guarantee that they are wrong, and that no one will have to pay higher gas prices—particularly the lower paid and disadvantaged, who, as everyone agrees, will be most vulnerable?

Mr. Eggar: I share the hon. Gentleman's certainty that I shall be on the Government Benches in 1998 and will be the Minister for Energy at that time. The Opposition are scaremongering. In 1985, during a debate on the privatisation of British Gas, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said:
There is no evidence that the Bill"—
the privatisation Bill—
will improve efficiency, provide a better service or produce cheaper gas."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c.780.]
The Opposition were wrong then and they are wrong now. They were scaremongering then and they are scaremongering now. They should be more responsible.

Sir Peter Emery: It is right that the consultative document should work to help the Government to obtain greater competition in the industry, but will my hon. Friend deal with the fears that have been whipped up by the Liberal Democrats, particularly in the west country, where they are saying that the west country will have appreciably higher gas prices than the rest of the country? I should like to hear my hon. Friend's view on that.

Mr. Eggar: There is a lot of scaremongering by the Liberal Democrats as well as by the Labour party on this issue. It is true that, on certain assumptions, there may be an increase of about 17p per week for the average consumer in the far south-west as a result of transportation charges. However, competitors of British Gas believe that they will be able to reduce prices to the average gas consumer by about 70p a week. In other words, rather than being worse off, the average south-west gas consumer, will be considerably better off as a result of competition.

Post Office

Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the Post Office more commercial freedom.

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): This is one of the issues being considered in the Post Office review.

Ms Hoey: It is about time that we had the results of that review. Why is the President of the Board of Trade conducting such a vendetta against the Post Office? Why are not the Government prepared to give it the commercial freedom that would make it an even more profitable business than it already is? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the recent Post Office survey in which 77 per cent. of those asked wanted to keep letters, counters and parcels together as one business and wanted that business to be given commercial freedom?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady will have read the Select Committee report, as have I, and will have welcomed the fact that it unanimously advocates change. The Government are deeply aware of the significance and importance of the Post Office and we wish to give the Select Committee report and a wide range of other representations proper consideration. As soon as we have concluded our review, we will make our results public.

Sir Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office is begging for privatisation? Will he explain the advantages that privatisation would bring to small and rural post offices?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend and the House will know that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in this country are already in the private sector, so they have considerable opportunities to trade commercially. They are interested in acquiring further opportunities and the Government are considering that. All these matters would be better considered when the Government respond to the review that we are now conducting.

Mr. Robin Cook: Did the President of the Board of Trade see Monday's report to the effect that the chief executive of the Post Office has had talks about privatisation with Warburg in the City? As there is no Bill before the House dealing with the privatisation of the Post Office and as there has not even been a statement to the House about the Government's intentions for the Post Office, who gave the Post Office authority to have talks about privatisation? Was it the right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] The House will note the contempt in which its procedures are held by Conservative Members. As no statement has been made about the Post Office review in the two years since it was set up, will the President take some time off from his canvassing work among his Back Benchers to tell the rest of us whether the Post Office will remain where it belongs, providing a public service in the public sector?

Mr. Heseltine: There we have it—we are begged by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) to let the Post Office be more commercial and urged by a Labour-chaired Select Committee unanimous report to make it more commercial, yet the official spokesman for the Labour party will not

even let the chief executive use the word. That is the best example of socialist suppression and totalitarian attitudes that I have ever heard.

Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. Friend note that the all-party Select Committee report unanimously observed that if the Post Office is to meet increasing overseas competition, it is essential that it should have commercial freedom? The report left open the question whether privatisation or any other method should be used to achieve that objective.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend played a distinguished part in the Select Committees's unanimous report, which I have read and to which we shall respond. The open-minded approach of hon. Members of all political parties to that report contrasts with the clam-like attitude of the spokesman for the Opposition.

Nuclear Energy Review

Mr. Rooker: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference for the nuclear energy review.

Mr. Eggar: I shall announce the terms of reference in due course.

Mr. Rooker: When the Minister reverses the lethargy in his Department on this issue, will he be able to tell us whether the terms of the review will allow for the early closure of the out-of-date Magnox stations? As one who is not anti-nuclear in principle, may I ask whether the terms of the review rule in or rule out the construction of any new nuclear power stations?

Mr. Eggar: The review will seek to address such issues. I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's stance on the matter.

Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the nuclear power review takes full account of the remarkable improvements in performance achieved by our nuclear industry, not least the world-ranking performance of Hinkley Point advanced gas-cooled reactor?

Mr. Eggar: I agree that Nuclear Electric has improved output and reduced costs considerably in the past couple of years. A major tribute should be paid to the senior management and work force of Nuclear Electric, who are committed to making a success of nuclear power in this country.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the review was started in secrecy because of the links between the nuclear industry and the military and because of the Government's determination that the industry should be shrouded in secrecy?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman probably asks me more questions on this issue than all the other hon. Members put together. He is presumably busy trying to prove conspiracy theories of that sort, but he is wrong.

Mr. Beith: Will the review take into account the full costs of insurance of nuclear power stations and the full costs of decommissioning? Will it ensure that those are not offset by subsidies or other devices that make it unclear whether nuclear power is viable?

Mr. Eggar: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure clarity in costing, which I am sure will be one of the matters with which the review will want to deal.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my hon. Friend recall that at the beginning of last year, at the time of the coal review, he said that the nuclear review would take place in 1993? We are nearly halfway through 1994, yet we are still waiting for its terms of reference. Does he realise that the nuclear industry, its employees, plant and technology depend heavily on the review?

Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I assure him that I will bear those factors in mind.

Arms Sales (Indonesia)

Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the sale of Hawk trainer jets to Indonesia by British Aerospace.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I have received a number of written representations from Members of Parliament and others about the sale of Hawk trainers to Indonesia.

Mr. Heppell: Does the Minister agree that, with 200,000 people reported dead in East Timor and with John Pilger reporting that Hawk jets are being used for aggression against East Timor, there is now a case for stopping any licensing of arms sales to Indonesia?

Mr. Needham: I have never seen a report from any reputable organisation which suggested a figure of 200,000. The maximum number that I saw in the United Nations report from the 1970s was some 80,000. I am not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman about the horrendous numbers of people killed in the 1970s, but if he believes that the problems of East Timor—which are, in any event, entirely different now from what they were 20 years ago—will be solved by an arms embargo, he is entirely mistaken. Furthermore, I note that as there are no aerospace companies or aerospace employees in his constituency—

Mr. Heppell: There are.

Mr. Needham: If there are, it is even worse. I note that he is only too happy to salve his conscience by putting at risk the jobs of people in the aerospace industry.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hawk trainer is the finest of its kind anywhere in the world, which is why it was bought by the United States and many other countries? If the Hawk were denied to Indonesia, would not the Indonesians buy an inferior aircraft and would not that mean that we would be exporting jobs to whatever country supplied that inferior aircraft?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is right about the Hawk, but it is not only a question of selling the Hawk to Indonesia. The points made by people such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) put at risk sales of the Hawk not only to Indonesia but to other countries. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would also be prepared to put at risk the most successful training aircraft and the jobs that go with it in this country.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister will appreciate the fact that this is a major humanitarian issue, whether the number of casualties was 80,000 or 200,000. He will be aware that Hawk aircraft have been observed on bombing runs in East Timor in most years since 1984. What assurances did he seek, before giving export licences, that the 24 Hawks that he approved last year would not be used in the same way? Can he guarantee that we can believe those assurances?

Mr. Needham: I do not know which Hawk aircraft the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he mentions bombing in East Timor since 1984; nor do I know where he got that information from. He will be aware—it has been stated in the House many times—that we have received specific assurances. I repeat my question: is he saying that he is not prepared to support the sale of these aircraft to Indonesia? What criteria would he use for the sale of such aeroplanes to India? He says that he wants an industrial strategy, but, at the same time, he seeks to undermine the most advanced aerospace industry in western Europe.

Mr. Sumberg: Is not it absolutely typical that the Opposition constantly ask the Government to do more for companies such as British Aerospace but still complain when they do? Is not that absolute hypocrisy and double standards?

Mr. Needham: Yes.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Byers: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the shipbuilding industry.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We provide the industry with assistance from the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home credit guarantee scheme.

Mr. Byers: Is the Minister aware that it is exactly a year ago this week that the Swan Hunter shipyard on Tyneside went into receivership and that, since then, more than 1,300 jobs have been lost? Does he accept that, if shipbuilding is to survive on Tyneside, we need a new owner for Swan Hunter to take the yard out of receivership? Can he say today that the Government would welcome a new owner for Swan Hunter and can he give an assurance that the Government would give all possible assistance to a new owner to secure new shipbuilding orders on Tyneside, especially in the export market?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm something that I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would know. The Government have been seeking for the whole year to assist the receiver to obtain a buyer for the yard and we seek to assist the yard now, as we have done consistently, to obtain further export orders.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main hope for shipbuilding areas may well come from attracting new companies such as Nissan rather than propping up high-cost, inefficient industries as happened in the case of British Shipbuilders? How much Government money was poured into British Shipbuilders? Was not it a great deal more than was given to Nissan to create long-term jobs in Sunderland?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that in public ownership British Shipbuilders was not


competitive, and absorbed a great deal of the taxpayers' money, without using it effectively. He is right to draw attention to the benefits of inward investment, which the Government have strongly encouraged, but which the Labour party has at times positively discouraged. I return to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers): we wish to see a new owner for Swan Hunter, and we shall continue to assist the receiver to find one.

Mrs. Ewing: When considering the overall pattern of the shipbuilding industry within the United Kingdom, does the Minister attach any weight to the effect on our offshore construction yards? We should look at what is happening in Italy, with the building of the Spirit of Columbus. That is extremely important for our offshore construction yards. Is it possible for the Government to consider how we can balance the needs of the shipbuilding industry with those of the offshore oil and gas industries? That is an important question in terms of the money contributed by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Energy and I keep in close contact about the possibilities of offshore construction for the oil industry, as well as for shipbuilding orders. If the hon. Lady has a specific point to make—about the Spirit of Columbus, for example—perhaps she would like to write to me about it.

Post Office

Mr. Hicks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce any changes in the administration and operation of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: That is being considered as part of the Post Office review.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge, however, that in rural areas especially there is genuine apprehension about the possible introduction of fundamental changes that could adversely affect not only the sub-post office network but the Royal Mail delivery service, and in particular the uniform standard charge? Is not it possible for the Department to come to some agreement with the Treasury to lift the existing Treasury constraints to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that we all acknowledge that it needs as we approach the 21st century, so that we do not have to go through with the suggested fundamental reorganisation?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but he will also know of the Select Committee's unanimous report that there has to be change. However, I can assure him that the universality of delivery and the universal charge for the services of the Royal Mail are not under review. They are sacrosanct. I have made that clear before, and I have pleasure in repeating it now.

Mr. Hain: Why does not the President of the Board of Trade listen to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and give the Post Office commercial freedom now? He could do that right away. All the delay is allowing European competitors to come into the British market and clean up, which is against the interests of the Post Office. Why does not he allow the Post Office to invest its own money, instead of being restricted by arcane Treasury rules? Why does not he allow it to enter joint ventures with

other European operators to conquer the European mail market? Surely his option of privatising the Post Office, whether in BP style or otherwise, will threaten the interests not only of the Post Office but of rural deliveries and post offices, so that all his hon. Friends will be swept aside at the next general election.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know that the principal foreign-owned organisation that is entering this country is the Dutch post office, and that the Dutch Government are about to float shares in the Dutch post office in order to ensure its freedom to operate in the commercial market. I will not anticipate the outcome of our review, but the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will understand that the concept of major state organisations trading with taxpayers' money, and therefore being able to undermine and undercut the private sector, represents an extremely unattractive prospect for the jobs of all the people who work in the companies that could be affected, many of whom live in the constituencies of Labour Members.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abiding characteristic of the organisations in the long list of companies that we privatised during the excellent and successful privatisation programme under the previous Prime Minister, was that in public ownership they were by and large unsuccessful and loss-making? In the present case that is not so, and as the Post Office is already so successful and profitable—no commercial criticism of its functioning has been made by anybody outside—it will not need the upheaval that my right hon. Friend has in mind, provided that it can be freed from Treasury bondage.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend must not anticipate any changes that the Government may wish to decide on. However, I cannot agree that we privatised only unsuccessful loss-making organisations. For example, we privatised British Telecommunications, which was a profitable organisation. We privatised the electricity companies and the gas companies. What has happened as a result of the 1980s privatisation programme is that major nationalised industries serving a domestic market from a monopoly base have become competitive world-class companies, trading across the face of the earth to the greater benefit of the British economy.

Mr. Cousins: Does the President realise that this summer it will be 330 years since Britain was last invaded by the Dutch? The Government may well be proposing to celebrate that event by taking a stiff gin—and who could blame them—but Admiral van Tromp's successors, as the President has recognised, are back, in the form of the Dutch post office. What plans does he have for our defence?

Mr. Heseltine: It surprises me not one whit that the hon. Member draws for his philosophy and his practical proposals on the deep archives of history. My concern is tomorrow, not yesterday.

Regional Assistance, North-east

Mr. Devlin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the expected benefits to the north-east from regional assistance.

Mr. Sainsbury: Regional selective assistance is expected to continue to contribute to job creation and the safeguarding of jobs in the north-east.

Mr. Devlin: Quite aside from the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) is entirely wrong in his history, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that his view of the future is also wrong, inasmuch as regional selective assistance is now creating up to 16,000 jobs in the northern region and 175 companies currently have an offer of regional enterprise grant? Is he aware that one of the 40 companies that have successfully obtained that assistance from his Department is today expanding its number of employees from two to five? Surely that shows the seed corn of future prosperity in the region and in the United Kingdom generally?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted. It is a remarkable tribute to the success of the regional selective assistance programme that there are 16,000 jobs in the north-east in current RSA projects. It is not irrelevant to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that, since 1979, 36,000 jobs in the north-east have been associated with inward investment. I suppose that if they were in Dutch companies, the hon. Gentleman would not have allowed them in.

Mr. Milburn: Is not the Minister aware that the level of industrial assistance to the north-east has almost halved since 1979 under his Government? How on earth does he expect the potential of regions such as the north or towns such as Darlington, to be realised when his Government are actively disinvesting from them? When will he realise that spreading economic prosperity to all the regions and all the nations of the United Kingdom relies on active Government?

Mr. Sainsbury: The most important factors for the economic success of the north-east, and of the whole country, are having a sensible tax climate and sensible industrial relations and avoiding the social chapter—all of which the Labour party would not do. May I perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that £1.5 billion of Government money in the form of regional aid has gone into the north-east since 1979?

Non-wage Employment Costs

Mr. Paice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the average non-wage employment costs for manufacturers in Britain, France and Germany.

Mr. Heseltine: In 1992, non-wage costs as a proportion of total labour costs were 29 per cent. in France, 23 per cent. in Germany and 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Paice: Those figures demonstrate beyond all shadow of a doubt the competitive position in which Britain finds herself. Does it not show that it is not the actual wages that matter in competitiveness, but the costs loaded on to employers by Governments, over which employers have no control? Is not that why German and French employers know that Britain was right to resist the social chapter and that their Governments were wrong, and is not that why Britain, alone in Europe, is experiencing economic growth on all fronts?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The certain message of the campaign that the country is about to see waged is that the Labour party and the Liberal party, with their proposals for adding social costs to our industrial costs, are hell-bent on the destruction of jobs in this country.

Mr. Purchase: Is not it the case, however, that, while our labour costs, direct and indirect, are one fifth lower than those of Germany and France, and while their productivity is two fifths higher and their unit labour costs are more than 15 per cent. lower, labour costs, both direct and indirect, are not at all the best guide to competitiveness?

Mr. Heseltine: They are just one guide. The vital issue is the level of productivity that goes with wage costs. The Labour party must ask itself just what it has been doing by encouraging the overmanning and restrictive practices of the trade unions that have done so much to undermine those matters down the years.

Competitiveness

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will issue his White Paper on competitiveness.

Mr. Heseltine: The White Paper on competitiveness will be published on 16 May 1994.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that the key markets in which Britain will have to compete in the future are those in the far east, and that we shall not have to compete just in Europe? Does he agree that the European idea that markets somehow require a level playing field is the antithesis of what we need, which is the development of this country's comparative advantages? This will require us to keep control not only of the regulatory structure under which our industries work but of the way in which we deal with and handle our labour.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand that if we are to have a market that is free and fair, there must be a regulatory system that is common to all parts of it. She can be very sure that if we are not able to influence the regulatory system in other parts of the market it will be rigged against the interests of British exporters.

Dr. Bray: Before the President publishes his White Paper on competitiveness will he read the unanimous reports of the Select Committees on Science and Technology and on Trade and Industry that were published recently? These point out that there are a great many factors other than price competitiveness in the overall national competitiveness scene. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the Committees' many recommendations on precisely the question he has raised —how to increase productivity?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has particular knowledge of, and a particular interest in, this matter. He will find that our White Paper on competitiveness does address the much wider horizon that he has in mind.

British Exports (Promotion)

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the promotion of British exports overseas.

Mr. Needham: I have received many representations praising the successful partnership between the Department of Trade and Industry and British exporters in overseas markets.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rightly or wrongly, there is among British business men a widespread perception that too many of our embassies are better equipped to promote genteel diplomacy and cultural relations than aggressively to pursue British commercial interests? Can my hon. Friend, knowing the commitment of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to putting British interests first, expand on what further steps might be taken to make a profound cultural change?

Mr. Needham: I do not agree with my hon. Friend, in that I think that the commercial posts overseas are professional, dedicated and extremely well run. I spend most of my life visiting them. As I thought that my hon. Friend might raise such a question, I have here 16 examples of letters written within the last month by companies praising the work of the commercial sections of our embassies. Of course, not every one of them is perfect, but 16 letters in a month is not a bad record. The partnership between the export promoters, the Department of Trade and Industry market branches and the commercial posts overseas that now exists is providing our exporters with an unrivalled service. In 1992, the Brooking Institute said:
Perhaps the most clearly presented and coherently marketed package of export assistance programmes is that of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tony Banks: As this question is about exports can the Minister tell us what is the current visible trade deficit? When was our trade last in surplus?

Mr. Needham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. However, I can say that the current trade deficit is about 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. When trade was in surplus, the maximum under the last Labour administration was about 1.25 per cent. It is a very small percentage of our total trade. The fact is that we export 20 per cent. per head more than the Japanese and 80 per cent. per head more than the Americans. In export performance, we have the fifth highest figures on earth, with 1 per cent. of the world's population. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will start giving our exporters some praise.

Mr. Nigel Evans: An area in which we hope to do well in future will be that of aerospace exports. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the skilled work force in Lancashire that is employed by British Aerospace and by many small contractors and which is involved in the production of the Eurofighter 2000, which had its international debut at Warton in Lancashire last week?

Mr. Needham: I would be delighted to do what my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Bell: The House will welcome the Minister's statement about trade with Vietnam and the fact that he has encouraged our exporters to penetrate that market. What

about that other tiger economy of Malaysia? Have we reminded the Malaysians that they have a £1.3 billion surplus with our country? Have these matters been taken up with the European Union? Have they been taken up with GATT negotiators? Where are we with the Malaysian Government?

Mr. Needham: I can say to the hon. Gentleman—not to him personally—that one of the major causes of getting into disputes with Malaysia are the comments and activities of some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Forman: Is not one of the best ways to promote British exports to draw attention to some startling and positive facts that have emerged recently, including the fact that the UK machine tool industry was in surplus in 1993 on its balance of trade and that machine tool exports to the United States increased by nearly two fifths over the previous year?

Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is correct in asserting that there are many sectors of British industry that are not merely world competitors but world beating. The only thing that stands between them and their continuing success is the possibility of Opposition Members being put in charge of our economy.

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to recruit the expertise of exporters in the private sector to assist his Department to promote generally British exports.

Mr. Needham: The President and I have invited leading United Kingdom companies and business organisations to second to our Department high-calibre senior managers with export expertise. These companies have responded very positively. We have recruited nearly 80 of these people and more are on the way. We are confident that some companies that have not yet seconded an export promoter will do so shortly.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. It demonstrates, possibly, why there has been such an improvement in recent years in the promotion of exports by our embassies overseas. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that one of the major industries in my constituency of Mid-Staffordshire is the pottery industry? He will be aware that Wedgwood has its headquarters in Barlaston, and that the well-known sanitary ware manufacturer of the name of Shanks in the town of Armitage—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member might save his descriptions for a debate on trade and industry and put his question now.

Mr. Fabricant: So what is my hon. Friend doing to promote sanitary ware and china ware overseas?

Mr. Needham: If my hon. Friend went to the countries round the world that I have visited he would not have to worry about the promotion of sanitary ware. As for fine china, we have established within the Department of Trade and Industry a group of tabletop manufacturers under the chairmanship of Royal Doulton to examine exactly how we can bring linen, cutlery, glass and china companies together to promote our exports across the world, and not least to ensure that all our embassies have the very best of British when anyone visits them.

Mr. John Evans: Given the enormous amount of fence building that the Tory Government and Tory Ministers will have to undertake with the African National Congress, what steps has the Minister taken to improve and increase Britain's trading links with the new Government of South Africa?

Mr. Needham: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be leading in the near future a major delegation of British companies to South Africa. The South African market has enormous opportunities for us. We are in the process of completing a strategic market plan for South Africa. We are analysising those sectors in which British companies can offer the best product, the best services and the best consultancies. The South African market will be a major target market for the Department of Trade and Industry, in partnership with British industry.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is aware that exports will not be helped if we adopt the European Community circular of directive 92/58 which insists that, by 24 June, all exit signs for fire safety are replaced by those depicting a little man running downstairs, because they will create additional costs for all our manufacturing industries, our town halls, the House of Commons and every library and information centre in the country.

Mr. Needham: I think that I can safely leave that question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs who is very good at finding signs of little men running downstairs.

Brewing Industry

Mr. Wareing: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd in the brewery industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Since the beginning of the year, my right hon. Friend and I have received three letters from or on behalf of IEL lessees. They were largely concerned with the rents charged by IEL for its pubs, the treatment of tenants and the compatibility of the IEL lease with European Community competition law. I also answered a written question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 21 March.

Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware of the fact that, in the building at the moment, there are several hundred tenants of Inntrepreneur who are lobbying Parliament in Committee Room 14? Will he see those people and, when he sees them, will he tell them that although the beer orders may have been legally adhered to by Inntrepreneur, it has drifted away from the spirit of those beer orders? Would he further explain to them why it is that, although the Inntrepreneur lease is in contravention of article 85 of the European constitution of the treaty of Rome, the Government continue to take no action against Inntrepreneur?

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am afraid that, in the course of my busy day, I will not have the opportunity to meet those who the hon. Gentleman tells me are in Committee Room

14. Had I had notice of their being here today, I might have been able to arrange it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have had several meetings on such matters, I take seriously the points that he and others make and I will always be prepared to take up with companies such points in future, as I have in the past. As regards allegations that the lease is in contravention of EC law, that is, of course, a matter for the European Commission and not for me.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Beith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress on his proposals to privatise the remaining Government stake in electricity generation.

Mr. Eggar: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to sell, subject to market conditions, some or all of his share holdings in National Power plc and PowerGen plc in the financial year 1994–95.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister tell us whether the forthcoming sale of shares has in any way influenced the Government in opposing the Energy Conservation Bill or in any way influenced them in their decision to table 216 amendments to the Bill? Before he formulates his answer, will he bear in mind the fact that it is not a good idea inadvertently to mislead the House in tactics for private Members' Bills?

Mr. Eggar: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the decision is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend and I cannot answer for him.

Mr. Moss: As Nuclear Electric is still in public ownership, does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation of that industry is crucial to the future of the nuclear industry?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware that Nuclear Electric wishes to be privatised and I am aware that a number of my hon. Friends support that aspiration. As my hon. Friend knows, we have to await the Government's decision on the terms of reference of the nuclear review and then the outcome of the nuclear review before I can make any announcement on the Government's policy on that matter.

Mr. Dafis: May we now take it that we all understand the real reason why the Energy Conservation Bill was blocked? Does not that tell us what a short-sighted understanding of matters the Government have because they are not able to recognise the enormous economic and financial gains that would come from an energy efficiency programme? Why on earth cannot they understand that it is disgraceful to think that the promotion of privatisation will be successful—according to their terms—to the extent that they will encourage waste and unnecessary over-consumption of electricity? What a reflection that is on the bankruptcy of our economic system as well as the Government's privatisation programme.

Mr. Eggar: No. Neither the House nor the country can come to that conclusion from my previous answer. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose dedication to the whole cause of energy conservation I recognise and, indeed, share, that I am surprised if he wished to bring up that particular subject, that he did not comment on the suggestions in the consultation paper, which I published with the Director General of Ofgas, which is important in


the gas market with regard to promoting energy conservation. He may like to consider that and I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

Electricity Prices

Mr. Miller: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss electricity prices.

Mr. Eggar: I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply regularly.

Mr. Miller: Given the disquiet on both sides of the House about rumours of differential pricing of utilities, and particularly of gas, as we heard earlier, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not allow differential pricing of electricity? Does he agree that such differential pricing would be a huge disadvantage to people, particularly those in rural communities? He has an opportunity to give a clear commitment here and now.

Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He should know perfectly well that there is already considerable regional differential pricing.

Mr. Oppenheim: How seriously can we take Opposition Members when they express concern about electricity prices or the interests of consumers? If they had had their way, would not they have insisted that—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are dealing with Government policy and not with activities or policies of the Opposition. Will the hon. Gentleman transpose his question?

Mr. Oppenheim: Did not the Opposition oppose Government policy to ensure that we had competition in electricity generation so that consumers' interests were paramount? Do not they always put the interests of producers and vested interests first?

Mr. Eggar: Yes, as so frequently, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry, there has been a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in the price of electricity to domestic consumers. I have to say again to Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they do not realise that there have been long-established regional pricing differentials on electricity, they really need to use their Short money more effectively.

Mr. Beggs: When the Minister next has a meeting to discuss electricity prices, will he bear in mind the fact that the successful intervention of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of Ministers in attracting companies such as Hualon to Northern Ireland, could be threatened because of the very high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland and the need for Northern Ireland consumers, both domestic and industrial, to have access to cheaper electricity?

Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that issue. He and I have discussed it in the past. I will again bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Matthew Banks: In advance of my hon. Friend's next meeting with the director general, will he join me in

congratulating the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board which has announced not just a reduction in its electricity tariff, as have other boards, but a £10 rebate to every consumer in the north-west which will do most for those in greatest need?

Mr. Eggar: I will indeed congratulate MANWEB on its £10 rebate and its 1 per cent. reduction. In addition, the Midlands board has reduced its prices by 2 per cent. The North Western electricity board has announced a 6 per cent. reduction from April 1994. The South Eastern electricity board has made a 2 per cent. reduction and given a £8 rebate. Time and again, the success of privatisation is recognised in the way in which regional electricity companies are bringing down their prices to domestic consumers.

Research And Development

Mr. Clapham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase expenditure on civil research and development.

Mr. McLoughlin: Information about my Department's planned expenditure on civil research and development up to 1996–97 was given in the recently published "Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology".

Mr. Clapham: There was not a great deal of factual information there. The Minister will be aware that, in per capita and absolute terms, Britain spends less on civil research and development than our major competitors. Is he aware that a recent study by the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the competitiveness of British industry states that one of the reasons for that is short-termism? What is the Minister doing to overcome the short-termist culture that is holding back British industry?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes several points. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said, we will be addressing some of those issues in the White Paper that will be published next week.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real relative shortfall in research and development spend in Britain is in the private sector? If companies do not maintain an adequate research and development capacity of their own, they are less likely to be able to implement innovative change. Will that be one of the issues that will be addressed in the competition White Paper?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend touches on an important point which needs to be addressed by private companies. A number of companies that I see are spending significant amounts on research and development. That is very important, and it is also important to create the right framework which enables companies to put their investments to one side. That is certainly something which we shall consider.

Pit Closures

Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chair of British Coal to discuss pit closures.

Mr. Eggar: Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it adds insult to injury for miners who have recently lost their jobs—there are no pits left in north Derbyshire now—to be told that they did not want the coal for the nation, when they are having to suffer massive imports and opencast coal mining on a massive production line? Is there anything more sickening for communities than to see bulldozers tearing up the countryside in areas where pits have been closed? The bulldozers will be there for 10 years, digging big holes and dumping toxic waste. Will the Minister tell British

Coal to stop these developments and will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to stop planning applications for opencast developments?

Mr. Eggar: As occurs so frequently nowadays, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong and wrong again. Coal imports are down.
With regard to opencast developments, the hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is at the moment consulting about a revision to MPG3. I seem to remember that the last time that the hon. Gentleman spoke to me about coal he argued for the protection of his own constituents, or nearby inhabitants, in relation to the opencast procedures which were to be followed by British Coal. He cannot have it both ways.

Complaint of Privilege

Madam Speaker: In view of the current comment surrounding the matter, I have decided to take the unusual step of informing the House of my decision on a privilege complaint that I have received relating to the statement in the House made last Friday by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott).
My function in such cases is limited to deciding whether or not the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. In the light of developments since I received the complaint—as a result of which the House is in possession of the facts and has received an apology—I have concluded that I would not be justified in myself granting precedence for this matter's further consideration. My decision in no way limits the right of hon. Members to pursue other ways of raising this matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand the ruling that you have just given, your decision as to whether precedence was given was determined by the fact that the Minister concerned made an apology to the House of Commons and that, in your view, the House is now in possession of the facts.
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that a precedent has been set whereby Ministers can now come to the House of Commons and deliberately mislead the House in the knowledge that, if they are subsequently found out, they can come before the House and provide the House with the facts as they believe them to be. If that were to happen, contempt would no longer be of any relevance to the Commons. In fact, the last application for contempt may well have been brought, in so far as you have now opened the door for Ministers deliberately to mislead the House in the knowledge that they can simply apologise to the House.
With all the respect in the world to you, Madam Speaker, I have to say that I find your ruling utterly astonishing. It is of grave concern to many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, which relates to the previous one, but, in a sense, casts a whole new light on the affairs of last Friday.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the transcript of two radio programmes from this morning on which the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Social Security appeared. Their remarks throw a whole new light on what happened last Friday in the House. We on this side of the House believe that you should scrutinise those remarks because your decision today may have to be changed in the light of the revelations of the Leader of the House. What they said about how business in the House is manipulated as common practice was quite astonishing, and it goes against any tradition of private Member's business in the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister concerned is one of the most respected Ministers at the Department of Social Security that we have had, and he is recognised on both sides of the House as a great friend

of the disabled. He came to the House and said that he did not knowingly mislead the House but that now, realising that he may have done—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to be helpful, but I must deal with these points of order. We cannot have a discussion about the matter.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Other cases of possibly misleading statements to the House have been raised. Have you anything to say about the role of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)? Would not it be in the interests of the House if the Prime Minister were now to ask the five hon. Members to cleanse the Order Paper of the amendments, which we now know were not drafted by them, so that the Bill can make some progress on 20 May?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of your statement, it now seems apparent that Ministers are so arrogant—as they have been in power for 15 years—that they think they can get away with anything. They have now become judge and jury in their own court.
You should re-examine the evidence which has been given to you because, at some point, the Government have to be stopped in their tracks. As Speaker, you ought to bear in mind that you do not represent the Government; you represent everybody in the House, including Back Benchers.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has support from a clear majority of hon. Members who have signed early-day motion No. 2, that it has clear support from every organisation of disabled people outside the House and that the Government have provided assistance to their Back Benchers to sabotage it, what assistance can you give me to ensure that the motion passed by the House on 29 April calling for time to be provided for all the remaining stages is implemented?

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was not the argument of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) slightly unworthy—I use the word carefully, as I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman—by suggesting that any hon. Member would take a position on a Bill or a statement which he knew he could correct by an apology later? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really have meant that, and I do not think that that would happen.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not allow the House to get into a debate on the matter. I am dealing with serious points of order; we will not have a debate.

Ms Liz Lynne: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to mislead the House—which I think was disgraceful—without coming to the House to make a statement?

Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with all these points of order, but I hope that they will now be rather speedy.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to Monday's Hansard? The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make it absolutely clear that I raise my own amendments. I sought consultation, but it would be totally unfair to suggest that they came from any other source."—[Official Report, 9 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 23.]
In view of what was said by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People yesterday, the hon. Lady's statement cannot possibly be accurate.
As the Bill, which would have given aid to disabled people, was lost last Friday as a result of lying and cheating by the Government, should not further time be provided? It would be quite wrong if people who desperately need the measure which is being advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) were to be denied their rights purely and simply as a result of cheating and lying by Ministers.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You know what lies at the bottom of these exchanges—the relationship between the activities of Tory Back Benchers and the private Members' Bill procedure. You will probably also know that my Bill, due for debate on Friday this week and unopposed on Second Reading, now has 108 amendments and five new clauses tabled to it. What protection do Back Benchers have from obvious Government interference in our time for getting legislation through the House?

Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) notify my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that he intended to mention her? Furthermore, should he have been allowed to use the word "lying", which I heard him say?

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet responded to any point of order.

Dr. Reid: I am referring to your response to the letter that he sent you. May I comment on the implications of that response for the future?
As I understood it, your statement that you felt you should no longer play a part in this matter—although other options are open—was based on two premises: one, that events have moved on since you received the letter, which they certainly have; and two, that we have heard a personal statement, which means that the facts have been laid before the House.
I believe that the facts have not been laid before the House. For the House to ascertain facts, propositions purporting to be facts must be open to question and to criticism. Your statement today implied that a personal statement from the Dispatch Box, which cannot be questioned or criticised and thus cannot establish any facts, can lay such a matter to rest. That will be used as a precedent by future Speakers, who may say that the facts have been laid before the House in this way.
In response to the points made today, may I ask you to reflect further on this specific point, because I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, that your statement may undermine our rules of contempt?

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have taken into account the procedure rules for Ministers which, in paragraph 27, state that Ministers have a duty not to mislead the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made it clear in a letter to me that if Ministers knowingly mislead the House they should resign.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an earlier point of order, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said that his Bill had a great deal of support. Can you confirm that one of the reasons why the Bill did not make progress last Friday was the fact that 100 Members were not present in the House to vote for the closure?
Is it in order for Opposition Members to question your rulings in this shocking manner?

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Paul Flynn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take just two more points of order on this matter.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are the defender of the rights of Back Benchers and the custodian of the reputation of this House. We all take pride in the quality of the democracy in this country. During the past couple of weeks, Bills that should have been fully discussed, without time limits, have not been discussed because spoiling amndts have been tabled, such as the 108 tabled in an attempt to wreck the Tobacco Advertising Bill.
Is there not a grave danger that our reputation abroad may be sullied and that the charge could be levelled—I do not make it myself—that hon. Members are abusing their elected office to further their own ambitions and financial interests?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: No. I am not taking any more points of order.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Madam Speaker: I will hear Mr. Banks.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since the whole House knows that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is scarcely capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, it beggars belief that she could have drafted any of the amendments. It appears that she is in Malawi at the moment. Do you have the power to call her back so that she can answer the very serious points that are being raised?

Mr. Alan Williams: rose—

Sir Anthony Grant: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have the flavour of the House. I do not want to curtail this, although it is not a debate; these are points of order to me. I will take points of order from two hon. Members—one on either side of the House—and that is all.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the ruling that you gave, you made two points: first, the possession of a fact; and, secondly, the receipt of an apology. May I make the point to you, Madam Speaker, that possession of a fact may in no way exonerate what those facts reveal? You have not said "because of the facts". It is simply because they have been revealed. Our contention is that the facts still indicate that the House was deliberately misled.
Therefore, what you are in danger of doing—quite unintentionally, I am sure, because I know of your concerns for the rights of Back Benchers in the House—is establishing a precedent under which merely giving the facts, even when they are self-condemning, then apologising for the fact that what one did was wrong, in itself exonerates an hon. Member from further action. I think that that ruling needs reconsideration.

Sir Anthony Grant: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. When you come to respond to all these points of order, will you reiterate that it is the long-standing custom and tradition of the House that a personal statement made by a Minister is heard without question and without debate? Will you further emphasise that attempts to get around that tradition and custom by the use of bogus points of order is an abuse of the House?

Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As someone who was here on Friday, I was upset by what happened, as are hon. Members who have intervened and who were not here on Friday. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I am prepared to let things stand as they are. He is an honourable man; he has made a statement. I think that the House should accept it, and we should take it no further.

Madam Speaker: As the House knows, a personal statement should be heard in silence and not questioned later. As for hon. Members who believe that a new precedent is being created, that is not the case. I hope that there are no such incidents in future, but if there are similar incidents, of course, I will look at each case and determine it on its merits.
As far as the radio transmission is concerned, I have not heard it, although I am a keen radio listener. I shall certainly call for a recording of it.
The activities and comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) have been mentioned today. May I remind the House that only yesterday the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) raised a point of order with me, saying that he would be writing to me on the matter, because he believed that it was a question of privilege. I have not yet received any correspondence relating to that. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter.
Other hon. Members have raised, in various ways, the question of the legislation, because they are now concerned about its future. The House will understand that the progress of legislation is not a matter for the Speaker; it is a question for the usual channels and for negotiations on the future of the Bill. Of course, hon. Members are well aware of how they can pursue the matter.
As far as the Prime Minister's actions are concerned, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) cannot hold me responsible for any actions that he might or might not take. I have sufficient responsibilities of my own in the matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: He is not responsible for his own actions.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am the custodian of the interests of the House. I have taken this decision— [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley makes light of a good many things. I take this matter very seriously indeed.
I have come to a decision about this after a great deal of consideration. As to precedents, I have seen a good deal of documentation. The decision has been made. It is mine and mine alone. My decision in no way limits the rights of hon. Members to pursue other ways of raising the matter.
May I end on this note? Sometimes—very often nowadays—the House becomes very bitter in its exchanges. We would do well to respect the different political parties here, and to respect each other. I ask hon. Members again to remember the words of "Erskine May", because we rely so much on that volume:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
I hope that we shall watch our language in all our exchanges in the future.

Points of order

Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, the Government published a report by Professor Alan Wilson on complaints and redress procedure. I leave aside the fact that its criteria excluded the impact of national health service changes introduced in 1990, and the operation of professional misconduct procedures. An important report of that kind, dealing with issues of great moment to people using and working in the NHS, would normally have been presented to the House in the form of an oral statement.
What I wish to raise, however, is an aspect of the report's publication that I would expect hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider important. In the press release put out by the Secretary of State for Health when she launched the report this morning—at public expense —five individuals were quoted. At least one of those individuals, as chief executive of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, has a direct interest in the outcome and recommendations of the report. They had seen it before its publication, and the Department had allowed them to place their comments on record, for publication, before hon. Members—including the official Opposition—had had access to it.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. Does not that extraordinary action by the Department of Health—finding a way around allowing hon. Members the privilege of seeing reports at the time of their publication and enabling those with an interest in such important matters to comment on them at that time—infringe the privilege to which I have referred?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware of my strongly held view that statements on Government policy, and other important statements, should be made in the House in the first instance, whether they are made orally or by means of written answers. It is for the Minister concerned to determine the category into

which he or she wishes the statement to fall. I am informed that, in this instance, the Secretary of State has written to all hon. Members, and that copies of the relevant document to which the hon. Gentleman has referred have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a completely different point, although it concerns a Minister misleading the House.
A few moments before the exchanges about the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the Minister for Energy implied in his reply to my question that I had supported opencast. I know that the Minister has not the guts to come back and admit that he misled the House. The truth is that—as can be seen from the record of the Report stage of the Coal Industries Bill a few weeks ago—I have opposed every opencast application in my constituency since I came to the House 24 years ago; but I do not suppose that the Minister has the guts to withdraw what he said.

Madam Speaker: That was not a point of order; it was more like a personal statement.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of law and order in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition)(Defined Activities)(Housing Management) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Public Records (Amendment)

Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain records in the custody of the Registrar General to the Public Records Office.
One of the unsung glories of the United Kingdom is the wealth of archives that this nation has at its disposal. In western Europe there is nowhere, except possibly the Vatican, where documentation illustrating the history of our nation survives, representing so many different institutions and encompassing the history of so many centuries.
There are two broad categories into which the archives might be divided. First, there are the records of the courts of law and the institutions of government. They are held today in the Public Record Office in its buildings at Kew and in Chancery lane, supervised, ultimately, by the Keeper of the Public Records, accountable to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Secondly, there are the records of births, marriages and deaths held at St. Catherine's house in Aldwych in the custody of the Registrar General, accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The history of registration in England can be dated back to September 1538, and anyone who, like myself, has imbibed his history at the feet of Sir Geoffrey Elton will know that the modern administrative history of our land began during the ministry of Thomas Cromwell. It was in 1538 that Cromwell's injunctions instructed every parson, vicar and curate to keep a book to record the wedding, christening and burial of every inhabitant of the parish. The parish was bound to provide
one sure coffer with two locks and keys"—
one for the incumbent and one for the church wardens—in which to house the register. A fine of no less than three shillings and fourpence was imposed on anyone who failed in his statutory duty to maintain the register.
In 1597 an effort was made to bring the system of registration on to a national basis with a statute ordering that a parchment copy of each parochial register should be sent to the diocesan authorities. In later centuries the history of registration became bound up with the various efforts to establish a system of civil marriage in England and Wales.
Eventually, in 1833 a parliamentary Select Committee reported to the House that a national civil register of births, marriages and deaths should be set up. That gave rise in 1836 to the General Register Act. The significance of that measure could be seen by the fact that the Bill was introduced in the House by the then Home Secretary, Lord John Russell, the debate was replied to by the Conservative spokesman, Sir Robert Peel, and the Bill was introduced in the other place by the then Prime Minister, Viscount Melbourne.
The original purpose of the national system of registration was primarily to enable individuals to prove their identity, to prove rights of succession, and, in particular, to prove title to land. In recent years there has been a new surge of interest in the records of registration, largely as a result of growing and widespread public interest in family history.
In 1993 there were no fewer than 435,000 applications for certificates at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys at St. Catherine's house and at Southport. That

development of family history has brought to light an operational problem. The public have access not to the registers themselves but only to the indices to the registers. In practice, that means that, if I go to St. Catherine's house and wish to search for the marriage certificate of my great-grandfather, I need to identify an entry in the index of what I believe to be the appropriate year, find what looks like the right name and roughly the right date and in what I believe to be the right district. I then have to pay £5.50 to obtain a copy of the original certificate enrolled in the register. I must then wait four working days for the copy to reach me. Alternatively, I can use the 24–hour service from the OPCS, but I must pay £20 for that privilege. If I am mistaken and I obtain the certificate of the wrong man, I am not entitled to a refund.
The only option left open to me is to make a further journey to St. Catherine's house or to write a further letter to Southport and to work again from the index. Someone with my surname probably has a 90 per cent. chance of getting it right from the index, but my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is sitting in front of me and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), let alone the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), might find it more difficult to be certain that they were chasing the right name through an index without access to the original registers. Many amateur family historians who pursue their genealogical researches as a hobby and not as the means of making a living face inconvenience and immense cost in time and money.
My Bill intends to make those records available by transferring registers that are 100 years or more old from the Registrar General to the Public Record Office. There would be no logistical problem involved in making registers available; microfilms of the original registers already exist.
My Bill is not the first attempt at such a reform in Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Teviot piloted a Bill through the other place in 1983, but the intervention of the general election in that year meant that no progress could be made in the Commons and the Bill lapsed. At that time, his Bill had support from the Government and the formidable support and encouragement of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone.
More recently, in 1990, the Government issued a White Paper on registration which acknowledged the problem, but, sadly, no action was taken to put its proposals into effect. The White Paper proposed an alternative route for making registers publicly available. It suggested establishing a central library separate from the Public Record Office because it was unlikely that suitable premises could be found in central London for a public search room and for the storage of the original registers. If my Bill is unsuccessful, I hope that the Government will press ahead to secure the wider public access promised in 1990 and that they will consider again the means to encourage such public access because, since 1990, things have changed.
In 1996, the Public Record Office extension at Kew will be completed, which will enable mediaeval and legal records at Chancery lane to be transferred to the new building at Kew. That will leave vacant the elegant Victorian building at Chancery lane, the first purpose-built record office in the modern world. It would be appropriate to turn that building into a national centre for the study of family history. The census rooms in the Public Record Office at Chancery lane already attract about 82,000


searchers every year. It would be logical to use the space made available in 1996 to make the registers publicly available on microfilm in search rooms in Chancery lane. Any genealogist would tell us that the two categories of record are complementary.
This is a common-sense Bill, which will do some good for some deserving people, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Lidington, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Derek Enright, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Bernard Jenkin and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. David Lidington accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the transfer of certain records in the custody of the Registrar General to the Public Records Office: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Opposition Day

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1st part]

Europe and the Environment

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; notes the lamentable record of Her Majesty's Government in failing to ensure that agreed standards for drinking water, bathing water, and air quality are achieved; deplores the Government's consequent attempts to diminish those standards; deprecates the inadequate implementation of provisions for access to environmental information, and of protection for wildlife habitats; recognises the need for further radical improvement in Europe's environmental work, especially in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy; and believes that Britain should be in the forefront of environmental progress in Europe, rather than lagging constantly behind its European partners.
The motion and the Government amendment at the very least appear to establish some common ground between the Government and the Labour party. We agree that the environment in Britain cannot be properly and fully protected "by national endeavour alone"; we agree that pollution knows no national boundaries and that, therefore, "Europe-wide action" to combat pollution is necessary and worth while; and we appear to agree that the single market must not be allowed to lead to the down-bidding of environmental standards between member countries. We also appear to agree—although I must confess I was rather surprised to read this in the Government amendment—that we should applaud
the work of the European Union".
I pause at this point to consider whether, in the current circumstances, all Conservative Members would endorse such a phrase. However, we appear to agree that we should applaud
the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain".
But what are we agreeing on? What do the Government appear to be applauding?

Mr. Tim Devlin: Before the hon. Gentleman presses on with what I am sure will be an excellent speech, will he tell the House whether all Labour Members will applaud the work of the European Union?

Mr. Smith: I am absolutely confident that they will and I have not the slightest doubt that my party's vote will be solid.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Does the hon. Gentleman believe that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), will be as enthusiastic about the work of the European Union as I am? And will the hon. Gentleman receive the same enthusiastic support from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Mr. Smith: I am sure that I shall have their wholehearted support, and I shall be interested to see whether the Secretary of State has the wholehearted support of the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Just to put the record straight, I agree that many things in the world need to be done to improve the environment, especially in Bolsover. Some time ago, on at least 20 occasions, I called for a public inquiry into the dioxin-contaminated area around the Coalite works near Bolsover. The current Secretary of State for the Environment, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, refused to hold such an inquiry and he still refuses to do so. If the dioxin-contaminated soil were around Chequers or Buckingham palace, an inquiry would have been held.
Notwithstanding my opposition to the Common Market, which I believe has been an unmitigated disaster, if my hon. Friend can ensure that someone from one of the 12 member states comes to Bolsover, holds a public inquiry and forces the polluter to pay, he will have my support.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes his point strongly. He may be interested to see the proposals on contaminated land currently before the European Union, as they will be of considerable help in relation to the problems of dioxin pollution that he has so assiduously raised in the House.
The Government's amendment endorses some of the work of the EU, but exactly what aspects of that work do they mean? Europe has demanded that we make mandatory the fitting of catalytic converters on new vehicles bought and sold right across the Community. That is absolutely right, so why was it the British Government who delayed the implementation of the directive? Why did they seek a derogation for a year to lessen its impact?
It is right that Europe should be laying down standards for drinking water and bathing water across the whole continent. Yet it is the British Government who are busy saying that the standards are far too stringent, and that it is all a matter for subsidiarity—that is, in their terms, a matter for national decision alone. Yet that is one of the items on which they appear to want to tell us that Europe should be applauded.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about drinking water and bathing water, does he accept that the Government have agreed the standards? He has said that he wants us to comply with those standards within a much shorter period. Can he tell the House precisely what period? By what date should the standards be achieved? What would it cost consumers and the Government, precisely, in millions of pounds? In the hypothetical case of a Labour Government being elected, has the hon. Gentleman the permission of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to make that commitment?

Mr. Smith: I shall come to some of those detailed points in a minute, but first I shall deal in some detail with the bathing water directive and the urban waste water directive. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supports are querying not just the pace at which standards are achieved in Europe, but the standards themselves, so he should get his own facts right first.
Do the Government applaud the European Union's wish

for an environmental impact assessment of the policy making process to be carried out? They are currently blocking that proposal within the EU. Is part of what the Government want to see carried out at European level the decision of the Basle convention, made only last month, to prohibit the export of toxic waste to developing countries? In their European manifesto five years ago the Government said that they wanted to implement that, but only now, reluctantly, have they implemented it, joining Denmark and other countries in doing so one month ago. Is that European action part of what they want to applaud?

Mr. Llew Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will applaud the European Union's move to ban the movement of toxic waste within EC countries. Does he support the call by many of us that the transfrontier movement of spent nuclear fuel between EC countries should also be banned? I do not see how Europe can ban toxic waste yet at the same time refuse to ban spent nuclear fuel, which is a much more dangerous substance.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a trenchant point. He will know that the arrangements for waste substitution arising from the reprocessing of other countries' spent nuclear fuel in the United Kingdom are as yet totally unclear. The Government have not yet agreed them. I have consistently argued that the Government were foolish to press ahead with the opening of new reprocessing facilities at a time when they have not decided what is to happen to the waste arising from that processing.
Are the Government in the business of applauding the European habitats directive? They have proposed no primary legislation to implement it. We have no statutory protection of hedgerows in this country. The Government are making no provision for the protection of the wider countryside beyond special sites. It seems that the habitats directive will be implemented poorly, if at all, in this country.
Is the Government's applauding of action in Europe taken as far as the amendments considered in the European Parliament last Wednesday to improve the packaging directive? One of those amendments would have set target bands for recycling of between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. It was supported not only by the socialist group in the European Parliament, but by the European People's party, to which Conservative Members of the European Parliament are supposed to adhere. Yet the votes of Conservative Members against that amendment ensured that the amendment fell. I must ask the Government whether the Conservative Members of the European Parliament were operating in accordance with Government policy at that stage.
The Government may say that they believe in European action to tackle pollution and to protect our environment, but on one issue after another they delay or object to or block the work of Europe in that sector.

Mr. Richard Tracey: On packaging, one of the key parts of the Government's amendment is the point about cost-effectiveness. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the type of proposal that the Labour party would support on packaging would add £2,500 million to the bill of industry in this country?

Mr. Smith: The short answer to that is no, I do not accept that for one moment.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Tell us the figure, then.

Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not paying full attention to what I was saying. The amendment to which I was referring was an amendment which set target bands for recycling of between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. The Government's own target is 25 per cent. Yet Conservative Members of the European Parliament—the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues—were the people who ensured, by their votes last Wednesday in the European Parliament, that that amendment fell. So they were not voting against my policy; they were voting against their own Government's policy. That, supposedly, is the progress that the Government wish to be made in Europe.
The Conservative party naturally tries to claim to be a fully green party, especially in Europe.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No, I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
As recently as a few weeks ago, the Conservative party issued a handsome but thoroughly bogus document entitled, "Europe's Environment—Conserving our Future." Let us consider some of the myths and untruths that are peddled in that document. On page 2—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way before reading that?

Mr. Smith: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him once. I have taken a substantial number of interventions and I wish to make progress. [Interruption.] I have told the hon. Gentleman that he will receive an answer to the points that he raised in due course when I discuss that subject.
The first point made in the document, "Conserving our Future," is that John Major has been at the forefront of the international campaign to protect our environment. The idea of John Major at the forefront of anything at the moment is a little difficult to grasp. How does the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) explain that Britain is the only country in the European Union to have refused to set carbon dioxide reduction targets beyond the year 2000? How does he square his claim with the fact that the Government's programme, even to reach the target that they have set for the year 2000, is already in tatters? One third of it relies on the work of the Energy Saving Trust, which currently has no programme and no funding. The Government's repeated grand claims about how much progress they are making towards achieving their own carbon dioxide target are therefore completely bogus.

Mr. Gummer: So that the House may not be misled, I should point out that two countries—Germany and Denmark—have fixed their targets beyond the year 2000. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are the only one not to have done so, but according to my mathematics the United Kingdom is one of 10 such countries.

Mr. Smith: I think the Secretary of State will find that other countries have done so. He is certainly aware of the fact that we have not. If he looks at the commitments made by other countries in Europe, such as Holland and Denmark, he will find that there are targets in place.
On page 4 of the document to which I referred is the following astonishing statement:
the private ownership of industry tends to raise environmental standards.
I wonder if the Government would like to put that claim to

the customers of the privatised water companies. Were the customers of Severn Trent well served by the fact that its filtration systems were inadequate to the task of picking up a level of pollution which 150,000 people in Worcester and elsewhere were able to detect by looking at and smelling the water coming out of their taps? Are the customers of Severn Trent aware that in 1990 there were 780 km of poor or bad river and canal water in their area–12 per cent. of the total for which the company is responsible? Do Conservative Members know that Severn Trent customers faced 1,222 supply disconnections in 1992–93? I do not regard that as a raising of environmental standards.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: Conservative Members should reflect on the fact that, in 1992–93, the chief executive of Severn Trent had a salary of £195,000 an increase of 37 per cent. on the previous year—and that, in addition, he has made £238,000 on his share options. Before claiming that private ownership of industry tends to raise environmental standards, Conservative Members ought to reflect on the fact that it tends to raise the salaries and perks of the people working for the privatised companies but does not necessarily raise the environmental standards of the work that they do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not persist. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not prepared to give way at present.

Mr. Smith: On page 5, the document says:
Open access to information on the state of the environment is imperative.
That is absolutely true if we are to have proper environmental protection, so why are the environmental information regulations that the Government tabled and took through the House in December 1992 so tightly and restrictively drawn? Why are there wide exemptions, especially in relation to supposed commercial confidentiality? Why is there no definition of what constitutes a public authority for the purposes of the regulations?
For instance, are the privatised water companies excluded from the provisions of the regulations as a result? Why is there no appeal system if an authority decides not to release information? Why, unbelievably, is information presented to a local or national public inquiry excluded from the freedom of information provisions in the environmental sector? When the Government say that access to information is imperative, they are not implementing what they say they believe in.

Mr. Peter Hardy: If the Government are seriously concerned about environmental matters, does my hon. Friend agree that they would not have allowed consideration of the Coal Industry Bill to reach an advanced stage while those in the coalfield areas still have grave anxieties about the consequences of mine drainage and abandoned mines?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Government were seriously concerned about the impact of coal and coal mining on the environment they would have done two simple things: first, they would have accepted a Labour amendment which was tabled in Committee to ensure that pumping of flood water continued even after a mine was abandoned so that the flood water did not leach


out and pollute surrounding water courses and rivers; secondly, they would have included far tougher provisions than they have yet set out in their draft planning guidance for opencast coal mining to insist on a presumption against new opencast applications being agreed. Opencast operations are enormously detrimental to the environment and they help to finish off the deep-mined coal industry, which the Government have been so anxious to see put in its grave.
On page 7 of "Europe's Environment—Conserving our Future" we are told:
We need to get right the relationship between international trade and environmental protection.
Why was there no mention in the GATT negotiations of the needs of the environment? Why are the Government, through the European Community, not adopting our proposals for reform of the world trading organisation to ensure that the environment becomes a fundamental part of its remit?
When we reach page 9 of "Conserving our Future" the Government compeletely lose touch with reality. They claim, first, that Labour has at some stage in the past proposed the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel when we have not. At no stage have we done that. I will come to the question of a carbon tax in a moment. For the Conservatives to say that the Labour party has at any stage advocated the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is an untruth, and they know it. Secondly, the Government state that we favour a Europe-wide carbon tax. We do not. For the Conservative party to say so is to perpetuate a further untruth.
Thirdly, the Government say that we wish in some sense to abandon the national veto. Again, we do not. We welcomed the provisions in the Maastricht treaty relating to environmental matters—at least to the majority of such matters—and qualified majority voting. Indeed, the Government supported qualified majority voting on most environmental matters. However, the Labour party does not wish to abandon the national veto on matters of taxation, for example, and the Government should know that that is our position.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand that he was quoted about a year ago in Green Magazine to the effect that the Labour party would consider imposing VAT on environmentally unfriendly products. The hon. Gentleman must accept, and I urge him to do so today, that fuel consumption conflicts with environmental objectives. Will he please clarify his party's policy on that in the light of statements that he has made about increasing VAT?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is reading his Conservative party briefing rather than the article or the document on which the article was based. If he had read those, and if he had also listened to the reply that I gave to an identical point several months ago in the House, he would know that what we proposed in the past was a raising of VAT on some small items, such as heavy metal batteries and items containing chlorofluorocarbons, and a corresponding reduction in VAT on items such as insulation materials. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a heavy metal battery and someone's quarterly gas bill, he is somewhat dimmer than I took him to be.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I will give way for the last time, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Hughes: I intervene only because it is important and because the Government are under pressure—and no doubt will continue to be under pressure. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the Labour party's current policy on energy taxation and environmental taxation?

Mr. Smith: As I said a moment ago, we do not accept the proposal from the European Commission for a carbon energy tax, for two reasons. First, it has a potentially severe social impact in exactly the same way as VAT on domestic fuel has had. Secondly, even if it is a 50:50 proposal between carbon and energy content, the carbon element discriminates unfairly in favour of some sources of power, such as nuclear, as opposed to other sources of power. We therefore do not accept the proposal currently coming out of Europe.
I wish to deal with two particular issues. The first relates to the bathing water directive and the point in which the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) may be interested. At present, one in five of all beaches in this country fails to meet the mandatory quality standards for water quality and two out of three of all our beaches fail to meet the guideline standards for water quality. Evidence from recent surveys, including the Reader's Digest survey, shows that we are getting worse rather than better in Britain.
The Government's response is to try to get the standards lowered. They have circulated a memorandum throughout the Community saying that, with the French Government, they want to see the bathing water directive withdrawn, amended or repealed. The Prime Minister came back from the December Council of Ministers meeting saying that our restrictive water quality requirements were to be eased as a result of a deal that he had done. When it transpired that, in fact, water and the water directive were not even mentioned at the December Council meeting, and that the rest of Europe were absolutely firm in saying that standards should not be in any way reduced, the Government none the less seemed to be persisting in saying that water quality standards in the bathing water directive—the standard of water at our seaside resorts—ought to be diminished rather than strengthened.
Labour Members insist that standards must be maintained. We want to meet the mandatory standards for bathing water quality and to see the investment in place to ensure that that happens. If the water companies were sensible about it—if they were looking not to their own profits and their directors' salaries, but to the way in which they spread their borrowing, where it comes from, to what they devote it and what their investment programme is —they would be able to meet the standards, and to do so a jolly sight sooner than they are currently doing, without imposing additional costs on the water customer.
However, the Government appear to think that it is perfectly all right for our children to go to the seaside and paddle or swim in sewage-contaminated water. We do not believe that that is right, and we want our bathing waters to be cleaned up. If the Government were sensible about environmental protection, instead of trying to diminish standards they would be trying to ensure that that protection was put in place.
The other point that I promised the hon. Member for Gravesham that I would consider is the urban waste water treatment directive. That directive relates to the treatment of sewage from our urban areas. The fact that the city of Hull discharges all its sewage untreated into the Humber estuary is of obvious concern to many people. However, the Government—and the Conservative party echoes this point in its document—say, "Ah, but we didn't realise how much all this was going to cost." The Conservative party document states:
The cost of implementing the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive … is far higher than was first thought.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No, I will not give way as I have already given way many times. Other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I want to make progress.
By saying that the figures are far higher than they first thought, the Government are ignoring the fact that they were told very clearly when the urban waste water treatment directive was under discussion, and before the Government signed up to it, what the cost implications were going to be.
In clear evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee in 1991—

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I hope that it is a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Arnold: It is a point of order for the Chair, I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is no good hoping. That is not good enough.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I—

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consider, with Madam Speaker, whether it is satisfactory for a debate to be held on a motion in the name of six right hon. and hon. Members, of whom only two are present in the Chamber, when the average attendance on the Opposition Benches has been 13? Would it not be better if we introduced a rule stating that 50 right hon. and hon. Members had to call for a motion to be tabled on the Order Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be much better if the hon. Gentleman knew the procedures of the House. That is a matter for the Procedure Committee. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) may be confusing the procedures of this House with the procedures for leadership elections in the Conservative party.
Before the Government signed up to the urban waste water treatment directive, they were told what the likely cost would be. The Water Services Association and the Fellowship of Engineering gave evidence to that effect to the House of Lords Select Committee, which determined that the estimates indicated expenditure of more than £8 billion. For the Government to say, "Oh, but no one told us

at the time," means either that they do not read Select Committee reports as they should or that they are displaying even greater incompetence than I expected. On all the issues—bathing water, drinking water, sewage treatment, access to environmental information, protection of habitats and air quality monitoring—Europe is far ahead of us. The progress that we have made in this country has been led by the European Community and the European Parliament. I commend especially the work of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament and its chairman, Ken Collins. The lead has certainly not come from either Marsham street or Downing street.
Of course, there are things that Europe could, and should, be doing better. Agriculture is an obvious case. There is a need to move away from highly intensive methods of agriculture towards less intensive agricultural methods. The new procedures of set-aside may in some cases compound the problem and encourage even more intensive use of land that is not set aside. No serious thought appears to have been given to how set-aside land could be used ecologically.
Improvement in the use of the structural funds may also be worth while. Regulations now refer to sustainable development and the need for environmental safeguards in the use of structural funds. I wish at times that the same principles could be applied to the trans-European road network.
In Britain, as always, we lag behind. Britain has made some bids for structural funds without separate environmental assessments. English Nature and the Countryside Commission in England have not been formally involved in drawing up plans for submissions for structural funds although, interestingly, Scottish Natural Heritage has been involved in that process. When will the Government start to ensure that the environmental aspects of applications for structural funding from Europe are included as Europe expects them to be?
The case is clear. Europe has a good record on the environment—much of it proposed, nurtured and campaigned for by Labour Members of the European Parliament. Of course there is room for improvement in what Europe does, but the present British Government have an outstandingly poor record on the environment. From the complacency of the post-Rio documents to the paucity of the "Third Update on Common Inheritance" which was published yesterday, and the content and tone of the Government's amendment today, there is precious little prospect of any improvement forthcoming in what the Government do in relation to our environment or in their contribution to the positive progress that Europe is, and should be, making in preserving and protecting our environment in Britain.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; welcomes the lead taken by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the European Union plays an effective part in global environmental matters and implements the principle of sustainable development


in all its activities; insists that Britain should continue to press for sensible and cost-effective environmental decisions on those matters which are properly the concern of the European Union; welcomes the progressive policies of the United Kingdom in all those other areas where national measures are appropriate; is saddened by the failure of Her Majesty's Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Party to support the necessary fiscal measures to reduce energy consumption; highlights their failure to evolve effective policy towards the environment and their desire to remove the United Kingdom's influence in the European Union by their insistence on majority voting and the abolition of the veto; and regrets the way in which they fail to support the Government's insistence that in internal matters it is for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide upon the most appropriate ways of reaching sustainable development goals.'.
The House may have been rather surprised by the speech that we have just heard. At the end of it, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that much of what was good in Europe had been proposed, nurtured and campaigned for by the Labour party. Yet it is extremely difficult to understand what the Labour party stands for on any of the issues that he raised.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—with whom I do not always agree and have sometimes been sharp—asked what the Labour party's policy was. He received a clear answer: it was what the Labour party's policy was not. It is not Labour party policy to support a carbon tax, although 11 out of 12 countries do support it.
I have a picture—to which I will not refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the leader of the Labour party signing a statement in the manifesto of the European socialists for the European elections. He has signed up to the principle that majority voting will be the rule in the Council.When this fact was put to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—he used to be the Opposition spokesman for transport, but I am not sure what he speaks on now—he said that we were quoting from the French edition of the document. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman could have known that in any case, but we were actually quoting from the English edition which was signed by the Labour party.
How will the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury square this fact? He says that we have to support all that comes from the European Community. Indeed, the burden of his speech was that on every occasion when the British Government had even questioned something that had been agreed in Europe, we were wrong and they were right. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that although 11 countries want the carbon tax, he and the Labour party do not want it. But he did not explain how the Labour party would deliver the reductions in carbon levels which can be delivered only by the sort of taxation system which we have put forward and to which he is substantially opposed.
We could not meet our targets without that taxation system. The hon. Gentleman would not go along with the alternative of a carbon tax, which he rightly said was disadvantageous to the United Kingdom; that is why I have opposed it continually. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept either proposal, he is admitting that, far from having a policy of reducing carbon levels after 2000, he does not even have a policy for reducing them before 2000.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had his facts wrong all along. He was challenged about his general statement that we are the only country in Europe which has not signed a policy for the reduction in carbon levels after the year 2000. But we are in the majority. We are one of 10 countries which have not signed a policy;

only two countries have such a policy. Even if we were not in the majority, this country believes in the European Union and therefore we believe that countries should set those targets together. That is the only way of ensuring that the whole of Europe signs policies which matter to the whole of Europe.
The real problem with the motion before us is that, although it pays lip service to the Opposition's support for Europe, it betrays the Opposition's history with regard to Europe. The Labour party has had six changes of mind about Europe. It has been against Europe for far longer than it has been in favour of Europe. The only distinguished former Labour Secretary of State for the Environment hates the European Union and everything to do with it. He opposes it on every ground and if he votes for the motion this evening it will be with his eyes closed to the first half of the motion.
The speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was sad not just because it was inaccurate or unacceptably vague about Labour party policy, but because it did not seek to establish a consensus with regard to the environment. Consensus is essential if we in this country and other nations in the European Union and beyond are to create the sustainable development on which the future of the globe depends.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: I will give way in a moment.
We should establish consensus in this area, but, sadly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has seen fit only to trot out a few inaccurate, party political statements.

Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. In supporting his broad vision of the total absence of Opposition policies, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that even at the lowlier, purely factual, level there are further great holes in the argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He referred to sewage and bathing water directives and so on, but it was his party which cut spending on sewerage by half and left many of my constituents in areas of population growth with sewage problems in their gardens. However, we have had the largest capital programme ever in this area.

Mr. Gummer: I promise my hon. Friend that I will return to that and I will do so accurately, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who tried to push off a direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) about the cost of his proposal on water. The hon. Gentleman revealed that he had no idea what that cost was. I will tell the House that it would cost £10,000 million. It would take a large number of directors' salary reductions to make up £10,000 million pounds.
The hon. Gentleman does not have a policy. When he was pressed on a carbon tax, he had no answer. When he was pressed on the figures relating to the way in which we are meeting the requirements of the urban waste water directive with the extra speed that he demands, he did not know them. The answer that he gave was clearly trumpery and rubbish because he did not want to give the real answer, which is that if we speed up the application of the directives, the cost falls upon the consumer. It can fall nowhere else.
The hon. Gentleman also had the gall to mention Hull's infrastructure. Who does he think was responsible, until


relatively recently, for the investment in that? The people responsible were his friends in the Labour party, and we have difficulties today because of the constant failure of the public sector to invest. When the Conservative party says that private sector investment provides the answer, it is right, and the answer is £3,000 million a year in investment.
That investment makes up in large measure for what happened particularly at the time of Denis Healey, when the Labour Government cut investment because they would not stop paying inflationary wage increases to their friends in the Labour-supporting trade unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union and General and Municipal Workers Union.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend remain seated for a moment while the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury intervenes to tell him what the Labour party's policy is?

Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman had three quarters of an hour and the position as far as the House is concerned is as befogging as it was when he began.

Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend let me move on? I will come back to him in a moment, and I am sure that we will come back to this point.
I want to get back to the issue of the environment. The Labour party is in no position to criticise the failings of others on the environment. It has never done anything memorable for the environment, either in or out of government, and today shows that it has no hope of doing so in the future.
All the key environmental legislation in the past 25 years has been introduced by Conservative Governments. A Conservative Government created the Department of the Environment. All Labour has ever done is what it is doing today—carp, criticise and whinge from the sidelines. It has not even done that effectively.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State tell the House which Governments introduced the Town and Country Planning Acts, the national parks and the country parks? Would he like to tell the House that those were Labour Governments and that the Labour party in government has a proud record on the environment?

Mr. Gummer: It is sad that the hon. Gentleman has to go back to the 1945–1950 Government to produce two of his three very miserable suggestions. That was an amazing statement. "We have not had a policy since 1950, and we do not have a policy," says the Labour party; that is what we hear from the so-called environmentalists on the Opposition Benches.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey: it looks as if he will be the only representative of the Opposition parties who will need some direct criticism. That is a sad situation and I think a question of ignorance.
Let me cite a few examples. On climate change, we were the first country in the Union to ratify the climate convention. We were the first in the Union to produce the detailed programme for fulfilling our commitments to

return carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. We were the first to suggest how to it could be done: we did not just vaguely sign up.
On sulphur dioxide, we have already reduced our emissions by 30 per cent. since 1980 and 40 per cent since 1970. In doing so, unlike some of our most vociferous critics and despite the fact that we were attacked by Opposition Members, we achieved the targets set by the so-called 30 per cent. club under the first United Nations Economic Commission for Europe SO2 agreement.
We did not sign up when we did not know whether we could meet those requirements. We sought to meet them, and we have done so. Where we sign up, we deliver and where we do not sign up, we seek to deliver. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition, who have only generalities without a policy to back them.
We are on course to meet our target of reducing nitrous oxide emissions to 1987 levels by the end of the year. We have one of most sophisticated networks for monitoring air quality anywhere in Europe, and an equally sophisticated network—the radioactive incident monitoring network—for monitoring radiation.
About 95 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality, compared with an average of only 75 per cent. in the rest of the Union. Why did not the hon. Gentleman say that the Union is good with 75 per cent., but we are better with 95 per cent.? Can he never praise Britain? Must he only praise other people? Is there not a place in the House for supporting the United Kingdom, or is the Labour party committed to pulling the nation down whenever possible?

Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the motion talks about
applauding the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain.
Coming much closer to home, has my right hon. Friend noted the difference in certain London boroughs where local councils deal with the environment? The hon. Gentleman represents a part of Islington. If one moves from Islington to Hackney to Lambeth and then to Wandsworth, one will notice a considerable difference in the environment. The point is that Wandsworth is controlled by the Conservative party.

Hon. Members: It gets more grant.

Mr. Gummer: The highest support per head is in Hackney, as a matter of fact, and those who live in Hackney will know which council out of Hackney and Wandsworth picks up rubbish.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury goes wrong in other areas. Some 98.7 per cent. of nearly 3 million drinking water tests in this country met the standards last year. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could say the same about Spain, Portugal, France, Greece or even Germany. I do not believe that many countries even test their water on that kind of scale, let alone meet those figures.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister criticises Labour's environmental policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What policy?"] If Conservative Members shut up for a minute, I will tell them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make a plea that hon. Members should use normal English language, and not the language of the street.

Mr. Smith: If Conservative Members keep their lips closed for a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will tell them Labour's environmental policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on an intervention.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: It would be a short intervention.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has criticised Labour's environmental policy, part of which is to end the commercial trade in toxic waste between countries. Do the Government support that policy? If so, would they use their powers to ban toxic waste from being dumped from other countries in parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Gummer: I have not criticised Labour's environmental policy. I have complained that there is not a policy to criticise. I am sorry that the rules of the House —which I entirely accept—did not give an opportunity for those on the Back Benches to achieve something which those on the Front Bench did not manage, which is to explain what the Labour party's policy is. It certainly would not take long to describe Labour's policy in full.
There is no dumping of toxic waste in this country, so the question does not arise. My aim is to ensure that toxic waste is dealt with in the most environmentally friendly way possible, so as to protect the people of this country and the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will find me steadfast in that. I will not allow dumping, wherever it may be done.
Moving on to our bathing waters, 80 per cent. of them meet EU standards already. I always like to look at what is happening elsewhere. I do not know how recently the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has been abroad, but if he was to travel the length and breadth of the Union he would probably learn that not every country even approached that percentage—I put it no more definitely than that. Why does the hon. Gentleman not point to the fact that we have already achieved 80 per cent. of the target, despite the virulent public spending cuts under the Labour Government? The hon. Gentleman should urge us on to achieving the other 20 per cent. instead of claiming that Britain is wicked because that 20 per cent. has not been achieved.
We are committed to spending £30 billion over 10 years to improve the quality of our water. If that is not good enough, how much more is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asking for? Who will pay for it? How much will the money buy? Will it be cost-effective? What will the hon. Gentleman do about the things that he will not be able to pay for because he is spending the money on water? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] These are questions that the hon. Gentleman cannot and will not answer. That is why it is not reasonable to accept his credentials as a spokesman for the green sector.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I guessed that the Minister had reached the end of the section—hence my intervention now. In the Tory party manifesto for the European elections of five years ago, the Government stated, under the title "Cleaning up the sea and the rivers":
We want to do still better. We will ensure that all our bathing waters meet relevant European community standards.
By what date was the promise of five years ago intended to be achieved? Surely it was implied that all the standards would be imposed 100 per cent. of the time.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that in five years we have achieved 80 per cent.—not a bad start. I do not intend to derogate in any way from European standards of bathing water cleanliness. My arguments, in so far as I have any, are simple: for instance, how much longer should we attempt to implement methods of delivery that have been superseded by better methods? Should we not be less prescriptive, and examine the time limits that have been set in certain areas to see whether they are cost-effective? Should we not hold the sort of discussions that sensible people would hold if they were doing anything besides hurling comments at each other across the Chamber? Would it not be better to compare the £30 billion being spent over 10 years with the pathetic sums achieved when water was in the public sector?
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority are two of the toughest, most respected and most admired environmental regulatory agencies anywhere in the Union. Can the Opposition spokesman name me any two agencies in the whole Union with such a good worldwide reputation for efficacy? In English Nature and the Countryside Commission, and in their Scottish and Welsh equivalents, we have some of the most effective bodies in Europe for protecting our national heritage—bodies which other countries copy when they come to set up similar agencies.
Our planning system is more effective at balancing economic and environmental considerations than are systems found in many other countries in the EU. We can use it to deliver sustainable development, and it is widely envied elsewhere.
Today, Labour has clearly shown that it has no policy on the environment. Moreover, Labour is wrong to claim that the Government have not taken the lead in Europe in delivering policies that are the envy of other countries. It is we who are forcing the pace, not a few members of the Labour party in the European Parliament who appear not to have caught up with the fact that, here in Westminster, there is no policy for them to support or nurture.
The fact is that there is no greater obstacle to sustainable development than the common agricultural policy—and who has done most to reform it and to bring the environment to its centre? The answer is: the United Kingdom. In four years, we have changed the whole EU attitude to the CAP; the environment has become not an add-on extra but a central issue.
The mechanisms used in the common agricultural policy were pioneered by this country—environmentally sensitive areas, protected landscapes and the like. These were British inventions, now accepted throughout the European Union.

Mr. George Stevenson: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how much of the extra £6 billion—the Commission's figure —that the CAP will cost between 1991–92 and 1995–96 will be devoted to environmental improvement?

Mr. Gummer: Far too little; we have sought all the time to make that a much larger part of the policy. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury tried to attack me, saying that we had not played a leading role in this campaign of bringing the environment to the centre. I should add that we have had precious little support in our effort from socialist Governments in the rest of Europe. The hon. Gentleman, if he wants to attack anyone, should


attack socialist Spain, from which I received no support on environmentally friendly farming. He should attack the then socialist France. The French prevented my every effort to improve environmentally friendly farming while I was fighting for Britain's cause and the environment at Agriculture Councils.
The hon. Gentleman might have a word or two with socialists throughout Europe, who put fine words in documents and nice pictures of roses from "The Plantsman's Catalogue" but who say not a word when it comes to voting in meetings of the Council of Ministers [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) seems to have a lot to say, but I advise him to say it elsewhere to his friends in the Labour party.
It is Britain which pushed and prodded—I had written down "a sometimes reluctant", but "an almost entirely unhelpful" is more to the point—Commission into getting its eco-labelling scheme up and running. From socialist France there came not a word. The French spent their whole time trying to stop it. Now, thank goodness, the Conservative Government in France are supporting us.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many eco-labellings have been awarded in this country?

Mr. Gummer: We have just got the system through, and the first has just been awarded—

Mr. George Howarth: None, then.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should not shout out the first thing that comes into his head. We have fought hard and have only just got the first lot through—not because we failed but because the socialists in Europe did not support us. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to laugh, but he was infinitely out: he said none, whereas the answer was one. The hon. Gentleman would have received a better answer if his friends in Europe had supported the British Government.
Our system of integrated pollution control is the most advanced in the world. Britain promoted the idea within the European Union, and it provided the foundation for the draft directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not been here for the whole debate; had you been here, you would not have heard a word from the Opposition about integrated pollution control—the most important pollution control system in the world. Perhaps the Opposition spokesman's advisers did not tell him that the rest of the world is now copying it. As usual, we have led the way. It is Britain that pushed for the European Environment Agency when its establishment was being obstructed by the pettiness of others. We led the charge to put in place the eco-audit regulations.
I shall remind the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of what happened with the Basle convention on hazardous waste. The developing countries said that they were not happy with a framework in which we told even those countries with a method of dealing with hazardous waste that they could not have it. Some of them said that that would be an imperialistic way of dealing with the matter. We therefore said that we would not export hazardous waste to any country that either could not deal with it properly or did not want to have it. We thought that a perfectly reasonable argument.
Then, the group representing the developing countries changed its mind and said that it wanted there to be no export of hazardous waste, so the United Kingdom wrote the necessary keynote document and persuaded every other EU member to support that. We led the way and brought on board a number of countries that did not want to come on board. Why not praise the UK? Do not praise me or the Conservative Government, but for goodness' sake praise our nation rather than always trying to undermine it from Islington.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's comments on hazardous waste, will he here and now reject the document on hazardous waste published by his business-led deregulation task force, which asks the Department of the Environment to
examine the EC directive on hazardous waste…with a view to pressing for appropriate deregulatory change"?

Mr. Gummer: I find the hon. Lady's attitude rather odd. In her professional life, would she honourably say that she would never discuss or investigate any matter with a view to taking appropriate decisions? I certainly would not say such a thing. On first reading, I think that the appropriate decision is to keep matters as they are or to do a number of things of which she might well approve. I am sure that no academic or anyone with a rational approach would say that he would not even consider any matters. I will consider anything that the hon. Lady proposes, and so far she has no reason to complain about my response.
Time and again, we have argued that the EU's trade and environment policies should support each other. I am sad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury cannot find it in his heart to acknowledge that Britain led the campaign to ensure that the World Trade Organisation would have an environmental input. We brought together the French, Spanish and Germans so that we could have a common view and we led the argument in the European Council to ensure that we achieved that. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is something that Britain has done that we could both support. Why cannot we both say that? We should argue about the matters on which we disagree rather than the hon. Gentleman's inventing criticism and throwing it not at the Government but at this nation, working within the EU.
Unlike some, we have nothing to fear from more rigorous enforcement of EU legislation. The hon. Gentleman managed to go through the whole of his speech not only not revealing Labour party policy, but not even mentioning enforcement. It does not matter what the EU decides if it does not enforce those decisions. Enforcement is the only thing that makes decision anything more than the outcome of a debating society meeting. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman's attitude to politics is that of a debating society, he does not mind if decisions are not enforced provided that he can attack Britain and the way that we deal with these matters.
Subsidiarity means nothing more than allowing the Commission to concentrate its legislative and enforcement resources on those areas where Europe-wide legislation is essential. It must ensure that that legislation is complied with. We are able to take the leading role in Europe because we do what we say we will do—unlike those who agree to ambitious, headline-grabbing targets one day only to revise them when the spotlight of publicity has moved


on. Few other EU Governments set out specific policy objectives year onyear and then report on both the successes and the failures.
The hon. Gentleman lauded certain countries in the EU—countries of which Britain can be proud to be a partner in the European Union that I so enthusiastically support. However, I also have some criticisms of them. How many of them have an annual update report on what they are doing on environmental issues and tell the public what they have failed to do as well as what they have done? None, as far as I know, but I hope that in the end all of them will do so because they tend to follow Britain.
We have delivered on the commitments that we made in Rio. Our national strategies on climate change, biodiversity and sustainable development were published in January, which is when we said they would be published. What other countries have done that with such directness and completeness?

Mr. Elliot Morley: When does the Minister intend to deliver on the Government's commitment on hedgerow protection?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the House turned down the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), with Government support. The hon. Gentleman knows that now we must find some form of protection that the House will support.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend may wish to confirm that my Bill received the full support of the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Gummer: The Bill also received the full support of MAFF, where I was a Minister at the time.
We have put in place the machinery of government, the networks of green-oriented Ministers, a permanent Cabinet Committee, annual reports, a high-level advisory panel appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a round table of all the interests to maintain progress on delivering sustainable development.
I have listed all the things that the Government have done to meet our commitments in Rio, in the conferences on sustainable development and in our documents—yet not one of them was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Why is he afraid of saying how well we have done? Is it because he does not know or because it would again show us how little the Labour party has to offer to those who care about the environment?

Mr. Chris Smith: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last comment, it is because I know that those things do not add up to very much. For the completeness of record about hedgerow protection, the right hon. Gentleman might like to inform the House that it was Conservative Back Benchers who ditched the Hedgerows Bill. The Labour party offered the Government full co-operation and support in bringing forward a Government Bill to protect our hedgerows, but the Government have failed to introduce such a Bill.

Mr. Gummer: No one could accuse me of being anything other than very supportive both of the Hedgerows Bill and of the principle of protecting hedgerows. I hope that it will not be misunderstood when I say that I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can come to this House without policies on energy, on water or on

any other subject on which he has been tackled. Yet his final fling is to complain that some individual Conservatives happened to hold a different view from him on hedgerows.
That the official Opposition descend to that level of argument seems to me to be extremely worrying. I can promise that we will continue to look at the whole of the environment and not be led astray, as the hon. Gentleman would like us to be. I would have been much more receptive to criticism about any failure to support the Commission's fifth action programme on the environment, which was one of things that the hon. Gentleman flung at me, were it to come from those, including the Commission, who had done as much as we have to put powerful institutional momentum behind their promises. We have done more than those who are criticising us.
It is because we do what we say that we have such a good record on implementation within the Union. Because we have such a large number of environmental organisations with a strong commitment to Europe, some 22 per cent. of all the complaints about infractions come from Britain. Yet they result in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments being held against Britain. We have a better record than Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. Why did the hon. Gentleman not mention that?
We have heard much today about the difficulties and dangers of misleading the House, and I am very conscious of the need never to mislead the House. But is it not possible that one can mislead the House by failing to say something? Is it not misleading the House to say that Britain has a worse record than its neighbours when one fails to mention that it has a better record than Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece? Is not that in a sense not giving the whole story as it is?
It is because we have such a good track record, because we are forcing the pace on the environment within the Union, because we do what we say and because we are prepared to make the difficult choices that we are in such a good position to protect all our interests.
I shall now deal with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. The House will hear a large number of wonderfully flowery phrases about the Liberal party's commitment to the environment. The fact that they will fall on no other Liberal ears, for he is the only one here to tell us about it—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Out there they will.

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps they will come back in to hear what they are supposed to say. The hon. Gentleman is incredible, because he has failed to support any measure that helps the environment and is tough. He will support any wet measure, any woolly measure, any proposal that his constituents do not have to pay for, anything that he can claim is rather nice on his manifesto. But when it comes to having to take the measures to reduce the waste of energy, when it comes to having to increase the cost of motoring because of the very issues that he raises, does he vote for them? Oh, no; he has a different way of doing it. It is not quite the same, and, of course, it would not pain anybody. It does not cost anything—

Mr. Simon Hughes: We never say that.

Mr. Gummer: Ah. If they do not say it, perhaps he will own up to the fact that the Liberal party policy on the carbon tax plus their statements on VAT would mean that the effect on the price of fuel would, if anything, be greater than the VAT that we have introduced. I have not heard that said in any of the by-elections. I notice that he suggests that, if we cut out VAT on fuel, there would somehow or other be no other tax. The carbon bit and the basic VAT bit is kept for another day. I expect today to hear about it.
I expect also to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has joined the environmental club, because the price of joining it is to agree to pay the admission charge, not expect other people to pay it—the other countries of Europe, the countries of the European Union, which he claims to support—but not pay it himself. But, of course, he will not pay it. He will do what he always does. He will say to the people outside, "If you vote for me, you will not pay the bill. Someone else will." If it is in the south-west, it will be the water consumers in Northumbria. Then his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) says, "Hang on a moment." If it is not Northumbria, it will be the water consumers of Severn Trent.
The hon. Gentleman is the ideal Liberal. Not only does he have a policy for every election, constituency, ward and street, but a policy for every house. And if there are two people in the house there are two policies. We know why, because his canvassing booklet has been leaked. It says you bang on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does it say very much about the environmental policies?

Mr. Gummer: I refer specifically to the section on the environment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the environment and everything else, it says very simply, "You ask the person on the doorstep what they are worried about and what they think, then tell them that that is what you are worried about and that that is what you think." Carrying the environmental message next door, they then ask what those next door think and, although they have always hated the people living on the other side because they think the opposite, that same candidate discovers—surprise, surprise —that he is absolutely in harmony with what those people think and want. House by house, and not very silently, the Liberal vote increases. But once they are in power in Tower Hamlets, what happens? They are rumbled. If one looks at the elections in Richmond, and I must say that I was pleased—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The local elections are now over.

Mr. Gummer: I am hoping to defend our policies on the environment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because no doubt that will be a central part.
We see the single market as an increasingly green market in which we have every intention of competing vigorously and successfully. This is an issue that should rise above partisanship. We will not solve the problems of the environment in this Parliament or the next, or for many thereafter. The issues are complex and difficult and affect all of us. They require difficult trade-offs to be made. If one spends non-cost-effectively in this area, one does not have the money to spend properly in another area needing environmental help. If one does something that one has not thought out properly in one area, it very often has a non-environmental effect somewhere else. Above all, if

one promises to deliver the goods without spelling out the cost, one misleads the people of Britain and does not deserve to enter in the debate. We serve no one's interest by allowing them to become mixed up in another bit of the daily round of debate.
We cannot solve the issues in isolation. Britain has a great deal to contribute to the common effort, as we clearly demonstrated when John Major became the first world leader to go to Rio and lead the campaign to make it a world summit. We have carried that on through. We cannot do it on our own. We must do it as part of the European Union. It is in the European Union that we have been leading the way. It is with the European Union that we have forged the relationships with India and many other southern nations. It is with the European Union that we are able honourably to say not only that Britain one of the best environmental records in the world but that this Government have put Britain at the top of the environmental tree. It is the Labour party that has consistently failed to present any kind of policy or any good reason why anyone should take them seriously.

Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attendance of Opposition Members dropped to eight during the last part of that speech. If it goes below six—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It was disappointing that the Secretary of State devoted almost all his allotted time to yah-boo politics; he would have done better to use some of it to discuss some of the problems with which the Government must deal. Three examples are eco-labelling, the Energy Saving Trust and legislation on hedgerows. It is extremely disappointing that the Government are making so little progress on all three.
Let me deal first with eco-labelling, or green labelling. For at least five years a substantial number of people in this country—at least 30 per cent. of the population—have clearly been prepared to buy environmentally friendly products in preference to others, but most have found it difficult to identify the more environmentally friendly. They need a labelling system—the kind that the Germans had nearly 10 years ago and other European countries have subsequently adopted.
The Government have said that it would be illogical to develop an eco-labelling system for this country alone, and that such a system should be EEC-wide, or rather European Union-wide. I accept that, if we are to have environmentally friendly products, it is far better to have them throughout Europe. It is sad, however, that because of bureaucracy in Europe, a lack of drive and the Government's inability to persuade other European Union countries, five years on only one product has been awarded an eco-label.
That product is a relatively expensive washing machine produced by Hoover. The eco-labelling board is clearly reluctant to advertise it, not wishing to be associated with Hoover because of its problems. A cynic might say that Hoover had produced not only an environmentally friendly washing machine but environmentally friendly free trips, given that those trips do not actually happen.
Because of all the difficulties, eco-labelling has been given no publicity. The one product to which it has been


applied is too expensive for many people to buy: they might buy eco-friendly soap powder or tissues, but they cannot afford to make the choice when it comes to washing machines. But, instead of telling us that the Government are trying to breathe new life into the eco-labelling system, the Secretary of State simply argued with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about whether having no labels or having one label was more important.

Mr. Morley: The Government and the British eco-labelling board have consistently refused to consider animal welfare as one of the criteria for the eco-labelling scheme, although the subject has a direct bearing on cosmetics, shampoos and a range of other unrelated products. Other member states are interested in the matter, and we could set the pace.

Mr. Bennett: I intend to refer to early-day motion 1208, which concerns eco-labelling and makes that very point.
I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will give us a progress report on eco-labelling. Perhaps he will venture to tell us how much Government money has been spent on each eco-labelled product that has been sold so far; I suspect that setting up the system has cost thousands of pounds for each washing machine costing a few hundred. As I have said, progress over the past five years has been disappointingly slow. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that a large number of products are labelled quickly in the European Community, thus returning some credibility to the scheme.
Not only have the Government failed to get the system going, however; they have failed to deal with the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. As was made clear at the outset, one of the problems is caused by the false claims of many companies that their products are environmentally friendly. Some claim simply that their product is "green", which it is virtually impossible for a trading standards officer to investigate; others claim that certain ingredients are not included in the product—usually a detergent—when rival products do not contain those ingredients either. It would have been very simple for the Government to table an amendment to the Trade Descriptions Act, making it clear that any attempt to make environmentally friendly claims that could not be justified breached that legislation.
The Government must carry public opinion with them —and this is where testing on animals comes in. Many people who would be prepared to buy environmentally friendly products are concerned that those products should not have been tested on animals. I realise that this is a difficult subject, and I do not entirely accept the "holier than thou" arguments of the Body Shop: many of the products that originally went into shampoos were originally tested on animals. If the Government and the eco-labelling board want to carry public opinion, however, they must come up with some method of assessing whether it is essential for a product to have been recently tested on animals.
The Body Shop also argues that labels should be awarded to only a small proportion of products. That is a mistake: I think that we should try to ensure that virtually 100 per cent. of some products, especially detergents and shampoos, eventually meet the eco-labelling requirements. I understand why one or two shops want environmentally

friendly products to have a certain exclusiveness, but if we are concerned about the environment that is the wrong attitude.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: One of the problems is the fact that the scientific base on which such judgments are made is constantly moving on. For instance, many people have switched to buying diesel cars, only to be shell-shocked on reading a recent report that diesel cars may well be considerably more damaging to the environment than the cars that they bought previously. How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem?

Mr. Bennett: I am quite prepared to accept that eco-labelling is not easy, but the west Germans have managed it for a number of years; besides, it is much easier in the case of certain products. I submit that, if it is difficult for people to award the labels and for hon. Members to make judgments now on the Floor of the House, it is equally difficult for other people to make such judgments when they are going around supermarkets and stores.
I believe that in many areas it is possible to make a scientific judgment. Such judgments must be made on the basis of the best information currently available, and alternative views may well be advanced in the future. It is difficult to say that certain products are environmentally friendly throughout Europe, which is one of my reasons for criticising the authorities for starting with washing machines. I have always thought that it must be hard to find a washing machine that would be environmentally friendly in the lake district and southern Italy. In the lake district, water consumption will not be particularly important, whereas energy and heat consumption for drying will be, while in parts of southern Europe where water is much more expensive it will be important for the machine to use the minimum amount; the drying may not be nearly so much of a problem.
It was the Government who said that, rather than establishing a British system, they would introduce a European system and encourage the rest of Europe to go along with it. As I have said, it is disappointing that, after five years, only one product—an expensive washing machine—has been given a label.
The Secretary of State made great claims about our signing up to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000. When the Environment Select Committee—of which I am a member—looked into the matter, it found that the Government's main delivery mechanism was to be the Energy Saving Trust. It was to have a programme involving energy conservation, and it was hoped that it would provide at least 30 per cent. of the reduction in emissions.
The problem faced by the Environment Select Committee six months ago was where the money would come from to fund the Energy Saving Trust. It was suggested that it should come from a levy on the gas industry. The Select Committee wanted to know what the electricity and other industries as well as the Government would contribute to the Energy Saving Trust.
The Government have now appointed a new gas regulator and she does not believe that there should be a contribution from the gas industry to the trust. She believes that such a contribution would be pure taxation and would be illegal. It is time that the Government told us from where the trust is to obtain its money if it is not to receive it directly from the gas industry. Unless the Government


can find some money for it, it will not be able to deliver the 30 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It is an urgent and serious problem. How can the Energy Saving Trust plan a programme for energy saving if it does not know how it is to be financed?
I think that there is a great deal of scope for encouraging people to move towards energy efficiency. We should also look towards solving the problem facing many low income households where it is difficult for them to find the capital to insulate their homes in order to reduce energy consumption and to make savings in their gas and electricity bills. It is important that the Government or the Energy Saving Trust should talk to the building societies and others to ensure that there is an assessment of how much energy is being lost from each property and then to see whether loans can be made to enable people to carry out the necessary work.
It is urgent that the Government tell us how they intend to finance the Energy Saving Trust. If they cannot come up with a system of finance, we will not be able to deliver our commitment to reduce emissions by the year 2000.
It was unfortunate that the Government did not have the courage in the previous parliamentary Session to introduce a Bill on hedgerows. They put it in their manifesto and I suspect that 90 per cent. of hon. Members would have supported them. They did not have the bottle to do it. They left it to the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) to introduce a private Member's Bill. They then allowed a small handful of their Back Benchers to filibuster and thwart the legislation.
I am disappointed that the Government have not introduced legislation in this Session. Several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), have offered to introduce such a Bill, but the Government have rejected all their suggestions.
We know that the Government are talking about introducing a Bill in the next Session, possibly to merge the Countryside Commission with English Nature and to set up the environment protection agency. I do not know whether the rumours are correct, but it is being suggested that the Government are trying to draw up the Bill in such a narrow way that it will simply be a bureaucratic measure dealing with the procedures of those organisations but that it will not spread over into any other environmental issues. That would be an insult to the House. If the Government are to introduce such a measure in the next Session, they must include hedgerows.
When the Minister replies I hope that he will make it clear that the Government intend to do that. They cannot go on ducking the issue. Hedgerows are disappearing and, worse still, many have not been maintained appropriately over recent years. I strongly believe that, if the Government can provide money for set aside and other things for farmers, they should provide money to regenerate many of the hedgerows that are disappearing.
The Government keep claiming that Britain does better than many of the other EU countries. If that is correct, how often have the Government gone to the Commission demanding enforcement across the rest of the EU? It is important that they tell us that. It is no good just complaining about a lack of enthusiasm from other parts of

the Common Market. The real issue is how far and how often the Government use the mechanisms within the EU to ensure that there is enforcement.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Constantly.

Mr. Bennett: If that is the case, I hope that the Minister can give us one or two examples of his success when he replies.
I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about what the Government intend to do to take forward eco-labelling, where they intend to find the money for the Energy Saving Trust, when they intend to do something about hedgerows and what they intend to do about enforcement throughout the EU.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I was so enraged by the comments by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that I should like to put on record the fact that the last Labour Government made the largest cut in the sewerage programme that there has ever been in this country. They cut it by about half. Areas such as that covered by Canterbury council, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) had growing populations and when I arrived as a new Member I found that many of my constituents suffered from the most appalling sewage problems.
Privatisation has enabled the largest ever programme of sewerage investment to take place in this country. In the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and myself, we have seen a brand new, ecologically sensitive, sewage works to replace an unbelievably filthy and smelly old one. The product that comes from that sewage works is used as fertiliser by the farmers. There has been a complete reworking of the sewerage system of Herne Bay, and many new pipes, including a major one at Seasalter in my constituency.
I want to deal mainly with metal recycling, particularly the EC directives on waste management and waste shipments. I have a good news story to tell. We were close to a Christopher Booker style horror story when the rapid and effective intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who was the new Minister responsible, averted what could have been a serious cock-up.
There are essentially two scrap metal industries—ferrous scrap metal and the British Secondary Metals Association. I have links with the BSMA because one of its past chairmen is a constituent of mine—he is our deputy lord mayor.
These are important industries. The BSMA embraces 30,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds worth of exports. Even more relevant to this debate, it is by far the best established and most effective recycling industry in the country. A casual observer with only a mild interest in politics might imagine that, when the Government are committed to recycling and when we have a deregulation initiative in hand, we might be looking at ways to reduce regulations for such a highly successful recycling industry. In fact, as a result of the two EC directives to which I have referred, we were on the brink of having a string of new measures which would have had a devastating effect on the industry.
The waste management directive is something which I believe that nearly everyone here would support in outline. It is a thoroughly sensible idea that, in the public interest, we should have more regulation of waste disposal facilities such as rubbish tips and so on. The problem is that it appears—we will not know for certain until July—that its definition of waste includes metal recycling. We must bear in mind the fact that, on the average BSMA site well over 90 per cent. of what goes in through the gates comes out again, mostly in the form of high-cost, high-quality metal products, whether it is tungsten, copper, zinc or whatever. It is an extraordinary anomaly that the industry could be categorised with rubbish.
Also, our industry is concerned about what the regulations mean for them and about what is being done in other parts of Europe. Concern focused on two areas. First, there was the proposal for a duty of care which could mean, in principle, a lot of extra metal work and, in a business where there are many small transactions, it could lead to a great deal of paperwork.
Secondly, and even more serious, concern focused on arrangements for surrender. It is not always known what preceded a secondary metal site, which is usually built on 9 in of concrete, with the bulk of the site indoors. If people are made responsible for the sins of previous site owners, the impact on the value of their principal asset—their site—will be tremendous, and the willingness of bankers to lend and insurers to insure may evaporate.
I do not want to bore the House or my hon. Friend the Minister with an account of what other European countries are doing. The good news is that my hon. Friend has secured a five-month delay on the implementation of the regulations. The industry and his Department are investigating practice in other European countries. The BSMA and I are confident that that those countries have made less onerous proposals for implementing, the directive and that we can learn from experience abroad.
I am particularly encouraged that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that we will have our own title. Although it is only a matter of the label, that shows a change of mind. The regulations will be called the metal recycling regulations to distinguish them from ordinary waste management—a fundamentally different activity.
We have had a lot of hot air from hon. Members about toxic waste, about which everyone is concerned. No one wants toxic waste to be dumped in an unsatisfactory fashion or to be transported in ships along coastlines.
In introducing new regulations, we must be careful that they do not catch perfectly legitimate businesses. Products are classified into green, amber and red categories. Batteries are amber items. It is in the interests of people who want a good environment that batteries should be purchased and sold to customers, whether in this country or abroad, for recycling and reuse.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the highly developed industrialised world could assist countries that are striving to achieve that same level of industrialisation by taking some of their most hazardous waste and dealing with it in ways that we have painfully developed over many years?

Mr. Brazier: Indeed. My hon. Friend anticipates my comments. He and I share in our county the university of Kent, the world leader in the biodegradation of hazardous waste products. We could make that technology available

to the world, to the benefit of the whole world. We must be careful that the regulations do not frustrate the objectives that they are designed to achieve. Other Departments might like to take note of the example of the Minister who recognised a potential problem and that serious worries had been exposed, but who was willing to listen and to say, "Let us take this slowly and carefully to see whether we can achieve our objectives in a way that is satisfactory to everyone." For that, I am most grateful.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As always, this is an important debate. It will be all the more interesting because none of the three parties' manifestos for the European elections has been officially published yet. My colleagues—

Mr. Simon Burns: And I.

Mr. Hughes: My colleagues and I will vote for the motion and not for the amendment. We welcome the Labour party's interest in the subject, which has grown over the years, although it is still weak at the top: the Leader of the Opposition is still not overtly interested in the matter and has said less about it than even the Prime Minister.
In my objective opinion, today the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not make one of his best speeches, whereas, in terms of performance, the Secretary of State did.
The fundamental flaw in the Labour party's justified attack is that it does not have adequate answers to some of the key questions. Until the Labour party sorts out the answer to the difficult question of how to pay for what it wants, it will have no credibility on environmental policy, environmental taxation and eco-taxation.

Mr. Burns: How will the Liberals do it? Answer the question.

Mr. Hughes: I shall answer the question, but let me deal with other matters. After about 10 minutes of expectation, the hon. Gentleman will have three minutes of fulfilment.
All the opinion polls show that environmental policy has been one of the most successful and most popular in the history of the European Community. The environment was not part of EC policy when it was created, although it was vaguely referred to in the preamble to the treaties in the early 1950s. It was included formally only when the heads of Government resolved to do so at their 1972 summit. One of the mischievous bits of history is that it was Lady Thatcher who signed up to the environmental commitments of the EC, to which the European Commission then paid attention and submitted proposals. When Prime Minister, it was Lady Thatcher who took the Single European Act 1986 through the House. It was only as a result of that Act and only after 1986 that we have really been committed to environmental policies as part of the European Community.
That Act, by which an article to the treaty of Rome was introduced, states:
Action by the Community relating to the environment shall have the following objectives: to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment; to contribute towards protecting


human health; to ensure a prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources.
An article in the treaties then allows legislation for environmental activity.
There have been European environmental action programmes—we are up to the fifth, which runs from 1993 to 2000 and is referred to in the motion. The debate on the Maastricht treaty touched on how much the Government would backtrack from their environmental commitments, which is a serious concern. Some of us believe that, were it not for the European Community, environmental attainment standards in Britain would be far lower.
We are naturally sceptical, therefore, if subsidiarity provisions under Maastricht will mean that the power to make decisions on environmental matters will return to the Government, not remain in the European Union. There was much suspicion—not all of it proven, but some of it apparently was justified—that during negotiation on the Maastricht treaty, the Commission did not pursue environmental issues against the Government, for example, in relation to Twyford Down, because it wanted to keep the United Kingdom on board.
The environmental impact assessment directive has been one of the best achievements of European legislation. It was passed by the House and it ensures that the effect of many proposals, such as road and power schemes, are assessed for their impact on the environment. Other directives raise our standards and tighten targets on air quality and emissions, including vehicle emissions, which, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will remember, followed an initiative from the European Community. Bathing water is probably the most urgent, controversial and topical matter, even before the publication today of the National Rivers Authority report on the quality of our beaches. Promptings on all those matters came from the European Community.
We may be good at enforcing directives that we have agreed compared with other member states. At least the law binds us, and the Government normally agree to sign up to a directive. For instance, the Conservative party manifesto for the previous European election gave a commitment to honour the bathing water directive.
The Government are aware that they are also being judged on other proposals that are in the pipeline and to some of which other hon. Members have already referred.
The Labour motion criticises the Government for their substantial failures. If the Government are honest they will admit—and anyone observing the environmental agenda will certainly admit—that they have as yet made no commitment to ensuring that the rest of the habitats directive is implemented in domestic law. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly reminded the Government that they have not honoured their manifesto commitment to legislate to protect hedgerows. Such legislation would have been passed had the Government been determined.
The Government appear to have backed off completely, but I hope that they will reconsider a Europewide system of civil liability for environmental damage. It is very important that there should be a legislative remedy for such damage, but the Government have tried to ensure that no such remedy exists.
We have not heard details of the implementation proposals of the fifth action programme; nor have the

Government been positive about the proposed amendments to extend the environmental impact assessment directive. There is a list of similar items, some of which have been alluded to in today's newspapers, because yesterday the Government produced their checklist of what they had and had not done. Knowing that that list was coming, the Labour party rightly chose today for this debate.
The Government should not really need to be reminded of what still needs to be done, but I hope that they will now honour their commitments. We have not yet had details of the air quality targets which were due in 1993, nor have we received details of the minimum construction standards for chemical and oil stores which were due in 1992. We were also expecting proposals for the removal of lead solder from water pipes which were promised in 1992.
We are still awaiting proposals for the adequate protection of sites of special scientific interest, especially after the National Audit Office today confirmed that one in five—or 20 per cent.—of them have been partly or wholly damaged since the legislation to protect them came into operation. We are also awaiting the draft legislation for the environmental protection agency. There is still no sign of the terms of reference, let alone the timetable and details, of the nuclear review. In addition, contaminated land registers appear to have dropped off the agenda altogether.

Mr. Atkins: Yes.

Mr. Hughes: Long-term targets for limiting CO2 emissions seem to have disappeared.

Mr. Atkins: No.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, I look forward to hearing what they are.
Most vividly and most recently, the Government were wholly determined to thwart the energy conservation proposals outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—the Minister himself ensured that the Energy Conservation Bill was talked out.
There is a further worrying suggestion in today's newspapers. The Government yesterday published their third yearly report after "This Common Inheritance". It was eight months late, but the Government's lame excuse was that they had to wait for their proposals on sustainable development. Any logical person would realise that the report could have been published on time eight months ago; the sustainable development proposals, which were meant to have been in place by the end of last year, could have been published later; and the fourth report could then have been published on time later in 1994. However, the third report appeared only yesterday.
It has been reported today, especially in The Daily Telegraph, that the Government may be deciding not to produce another report. I expressly ask the Minister to give an undertaking that, as the Government promised in 1990 when they issued the first report, there will continue to be annual reports, that they will in future be published on time and that they will contain a checklist of what has and has not been achieved. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is a good thing for the Government to produce annual reports. The Government gave an undertaking to do so and, if they are now dropping it, it would severely weaken their accountability.

Mr. Atkins: This is the first that I have heard of any such intention. It is certainly not my intention or that of the Secretary of State that such reports should be dropped.

Mr. Hughes: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply. However, I refer him or his officials to the suggestion in The Daily Telegraph today. I had not heard the suggestion before. The Government clearly made a commitment in 1990 that there should be annual reports. We were frustrated because this year's report was eight months late, which was inexcusable. It would also be far better if there were an opportunity annually for the report to be sent to the appropriate Select Committee, for the Select Committee to issue a report on it to be put before the House and for us then to assess annually the national and global environment, as happens in the United States.
I deal now with two issues in which I know that all hon. Members are interested. I accept the Secretary of State's proposition that, if we are to join an environmental club, we have to pay the admission cost. By way of a preface, may I say that there was nothing in the Conservative party's 1992 manifesto or in the Labour party's 1992 manifesto about energy taxes. However, my party's manifesto did mention them and our proposals were costed. In order to make it clear, I shall put our proposals on record.
Our view is set out clearly, and it will save Tory central office sending people for the brief—

Mr. Burns: "Costing the Earth".

Mr. Hughes: No. Our view has been set out most recently not in "Costing the Earth" but in another document, properly adorned—it is the European policy document passed by our conference at the beginning of the year, in March.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is the same as "Costing the Earth".

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not the same as "Costing the Earth". I have never before written a document which has had such a wide readership among all parties as "Costing the Earth". Had I known that it would be so popular, I would have increased the price and insisted on taking royalties. I shall not bore the House with details of our policy process, but it clearly fascinates Tory Members, so I shall relate a quick history of it.
As Conservative Members know now, we considered and rejected the idea of value added tax on domestic fuel and we now have this policy, which I commend to the House. The new policy is contained in one and a half columns of the document—in other words, there is plenty of it. I shall not read it all; I shall paraphrase.
We propose a shift in the burden of taxation towards taxing resources rather than people. We also propose a carbon energy tax along the lines of the European suggestion, which we could not accept as it stands because it stupidly leaves out some of the biggest polluters, which is clearly nonsense. Such a tax should be phased in and we believe that the rate should vary according to the energy content of the fuel and the amount of carbon dioxide that it releases. That would mean making cleaner sources cheaper and the polluting ones more expensive.
I come now to the party political issue—let us not mess around. Such a tax would be revenue-neutral, because the money raised would be put back into the economy in one of three ways. First, there would be compensation for those who were especially vulnerable to higher energy and transport costs. Secondly, there would be targeted investment in energy efficiency schemes and public

transport. Thirdly, and interestingly—especially for a Government who say that we must retain VAT on domestic fuel—there would be a reduction in other taxes such as income tax, national insurance contributions and employers' national insurance contributions and, perhaps, a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent.
We cannot get rid of VAT on fuel now because we are committed to it under European legislation. However, as I have told the Secretary of State to his face, we do not believe that levying VAT on domestic fuel was the right way to tax fuel. In any event, the paradox is that in last year's Budget the Government also proceeded to levy taxes on petrol which were higher than we had proposed.
We voted against them, but not because we did not believe that fuel costs should go up. We did, and do, believe that they should. That view has been shared by all three parties and all three have gone on the record on the subject. But we did not believe that the Government should impose the combination of VAT on domestic fuel, increasing in two stages up to 17.5 per cent., and the increase in petrol duty.

Mr. Burns: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I did not think that I would get through my speech without having to give way. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), as often, was the first to indicate his interest.

Mr. Burns: As the hon. Gentleman is in such helpful mode, I should be grateful if he would help me a little further. On the revenue-raising side of the equation, will he tell the House how much would be raised by the proposals that he paraphrased? On the other side of the equation, has his party made an assessment of the impact of the proposals, before any reliefs, on rural parts of the country?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. At the risk of being tedious, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have. I have another document here, which I shall let him see afterwards. It contains costings from our 82 manifesto—

Mr. Burns: Eighty-two?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, 82.

Mr. Nicholls: Eighteen eighty-two?

Mr. Hughes: No, it was 1982—or rather, 1992. I meant to say 1992. Two whole pages—pages 5 and 6—of our 1992 manifesto set out the yields for proposals linking car tax to fuel efficiency, the cost of a 1 per cent. cut in VAT phased in over five years, increases in benefits for the poorest, and other compensation measures for people with disabilities and people in rural communities. All that is set out year by year.

Mr. Burns: How much?

Mr. Hughes: In the first year nil, in the second year £80 million, in the third year £240 million, in the fourth year —but I need not go on. It is all here. We have all the details for the graduation of vehicle excise duty with fuel efficiency, and for environmental grants and subsidies. Because it is all so detailed, I shall not amplify my explanation any further, but I assure the hon. Members for Chelmsford and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—

Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy, and I shall not charge him for it. As the hon. Member for Teignbridge, too, always quotes Tory central office briefings during such debates, I shall let him have a copy as well.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall allow one more intervention; then I shall say a few words about bathing water; then I shall finish.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We always enjoy his contributions, even when he turns round and says, "Forget about that previous document; we've got another document now." From what he has said, we now understand that there has been a terrible misunderstanding and that the Liberal Democrats actually supported an increase in petrol prices, but not quite as large an increase as the Government chose. So will he remind us whether, during the passage of the Finance Bill, he tabled an amendment calling for an increase in petrol prices, but not such a large increase as ours? I cannot recall such an amendment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remind me if there was one.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is hoist with his own petard. He should remember the procedure. In this place we first vote on the money resolutions; a selection is made of those on which we are to vote. There was a vote on that resolution, and we opposed it.

Mr. Nicholls: Did the hon. Gentleman table an amendment?

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Treasury spokesman of the Liberal Democratic party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who participated in the Committee proceedings on the Finance Bill, made our position clear.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge is unusually badly informed, for him. I can send him chapter and verse, showing that we have argued for increases in petrol prices, but that before the 1993 Budgets we argued that they should be less than the increase that the Government eventually chose. Thereafter we said, "Look, you have gone over the top. Even you need not have done that much."

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall send the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse.

Mr. Nicholls: So the answer is no.

Mr. Hughes: The answer is not no. The argument went on in Committee almost ad nauseam. We voted accordingly and the speeches are on the record.
My last point is about the bathing water directive. The issue is not only topical but extremely important. There is a programme under way to ensure that we comply with European standards. Many of our beaches do not comply. When people go to resorts such as Blackpool and Brighton, they often have to swim in sewage. That is a disgrace. It is unacceptable. At a time of high environmental awareness, we cannot expect to persuade people to spend their holidays here if that is what happens when they go to many of the beaches round our country.
We believe that we must honour the commitments; we must not water them down. Of course, a politically acceptable formula must be found, and that means a variety of things. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested, it means changing the basis on which people pay their water rates. It means changing the way in which the cost is shared over the whole country. It should not be borne disproportionately by the region with the most beaches, such as the south-west. I have supported proposals by hon. Members to alter that, whichever party they come from. Finally, there must be more public investment by the Government. The problem is not insuperable. The Government can deal with it, but standards must not be reduced.
I hope that our clarity on this and other issues will be rewarded when in many places we are returned as the party with the best environmental commitments—[Laughter.] —at the European elections next month. I assure the Government that their inadequacy in honouring their commitments means that they will find it difficult to defend their record.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I shall not take up too much of the time of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points and one specific point on a subject that, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, has not been touched on so far. I congratulate the Opposition on choosing a debate on this subject, although it is a bit of a shame that the speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) did not match the magnificence of his theme.
None the less, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because the environment is a sphere in which Europe has an important role to play. Clearly, many environmental problems cannot have a purely national solution. Pollution does not respect international frontiers; it works its way through the air, the sea and the rivers of Europe, oblivious to any notion of national sovereignty. So it is right that we should seek solutions to those common international problems at a European level.
The question is how Europe can best address those problems. What institutions and organisations are best equipped to provide solutions, and how far should their competence extend? That is a developing area of European policy, where targets, strategies and institutions are being fashioned to meet the challenge of protecting our common environment. The environment is an area of great public concern, in which the legitimacy of Europe's competence is widely accepted, and where European solutions are expected. It is also an area in which Europe has already demonstrated its determination to bring about significant improvements in the quality of our environment. As the Secretary of State has already outlined, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in shaping European policy, institutions and legislation.
However, several issues concern me, and they will present Europe with real dangers, difficulties and challenges in the years ahead. Those issues must remain at the forefront of the Government's approach to the European environment.
The first problem is the damage that the European Union could do to itself and to its long-term ability to provide solutions to environmental problems if it fails to get the balance right between issues best tackled at a


European level and those that are best left to national Governments. A failure to make that distinction would undermine all the good work being done. It would create disillusionment and, ultimately, destroy European institutions. That is why subsidiarity is so important, and why the Government are absolutely right to pursue it as doggedly in the environmental sphere as in any other.
My constituency was recently threatened by the over-zealous encroachments of a Greek Commissioner, Mr. Paleokrassas, who decided to try to ban bathing on Blackpool's beaches. It would not surprise me if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agreed with that idea, because he talked about people swimming in raw sewage off Blackpool. Of course, that was absolute nonsense. The very thought of banning bathing off Blackpool's beaches is absurd, and was rightly recognised to be a monstrous piece of Greek cheek.
In the event, Mr. Paleokrassas's attitude proved completely unnecessary. After a campaign by Michael Welsh, the Member of the European Parliament for Lancashire Central, the Commissioner agreed that his proposed bathing directive would have been unnecessarily intrusive and that decisions on whether to close beaches were best left to national Governments and local authorities. If he had not had the good sense to accept Michael Welsh's argument, he would have done untold harm—harm which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey still seems prepared to do—to Blackpool's lifeblood, its tourist industry.
He would also have failed to put in place any more effective solution to the problem than was already being provided by North West Water, because the north-west now has a £5 billion programme to modernise the water and sewerage infrastructure of the region. That will include a brand-new, high-technology waste water treatment plant at Fleetwood, along the coast from Blackpool, which will mean that Blackpool and the Fylde coast will be able to meet the, quite rightly, high standards of the bathing waters directive by 1996. It could not be done any quicker than it is being done at the moment and the European Commissioner's attitude was as irresponsible, before he reconsidered, as that of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey currently appears to be.
My second anxiety is about the problem of implementation and enforcement. A common criticism of European legislation is that it never appears to be universally applicable. In this country, we ensure that it is enforced rigorously. We have an excellent record of implementing Community environmental legislation in full and on time. The same cannot be said for many of our European partners. Between 1988 and 1992, of all the cases in which the European Court of Justice identified infractions of environmental legislation, only 2 per cent. were against the United Kingdom, compared with 10 per cent. against France, 16 per cent. against Germany and 24 per cent. against Italy.
To return to my example of the bathing waters directive, it is very irritating to find that while the European Commission was turning its attention to Britain's beaches, where a multi-billion pound programme was under way to meet the new standards, other European countries appeared able to get away with staggering levels of pollution.
The Secretary of State mentioned some of the appalling horror stories from the rest of the European Community. A

recent report in the Daily Express revealed the pollution in some other European resorts. It said, for instance, that in France, untreated sewage is discharged in Nice, and 
at Cannes, special filter boats battle to clean up the water.
In Italy, the Bay of Naples is muddy brown, churning raw sewage and oil from tankers…
In Spain, a high water stain of pollution and sewage rings the resorts of the Costa Brava and Costa Blanca …
In Portugal, raw waste from shanty towns flows directly into the sea along parts of the Algarve.
For all the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaking about people who visit Blackpool swimming in sewage, which is nonsense, he should consider, as should Labour Members, what is happening in other parts of the European Community, not spend his time talking down British resorts, and British tourism, which is Britain's second-largest industry.
The Government are absolutely right to make implementation of environmental legislation a major priority. We should hold all member states to account and insist that the Commission monitors implementation and publishes its findings.
The third problem that I wanted to mention, which has not been mentioned but which none the less strikes me as very important, is the scale of the environmental catastrophe confronting Europe and our efforts to tackle it.
Little has been said about what I would refer to as "the forgotten half of Europe". Communism in eastern Europe has left a tragic legacy of environmental devastation and pollution. The countries of eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union have inherited massive air and water pollution, degradation of the soil, deforestation and loss of biological diversity. Lakes, forests and seas are dying or disappearing. Marshes are turning into sandy wastes. Noxious emissions have polluted scores of cities. The number of cases of terminal cancer and respiratory diseases has increased in industrial areas. The nuclear industry in certain areas continues to be a serious problem.
That is happening throughout eastern Europe, but the problem is especially bad in the former Soviet Union and in Russia. Water pollution, contaminating drinking water, has led to outbreaks of disease in the former Soviet Union. Water pollution has reached crisis proportions in parts of Kazakhstan and the rest of central Asia after decades of improper agricultural practices, such as the over-use of pesticides. In Siberia, Lake Baikal, the largest freshwater lake in the world, is polluted by a pulp and paper mill, which every year disgorges into the lake 100 megatonnes of cellulose waste, only partially treated by an inadequate purification system. The condition of Lake Ladoga, outside St. Petersburg, in which levels of phosphorous have increased by 300 per cent., and those of nitrogen by 30 per cent., in the past 30 years, is alarming.
All that is happening on our doorstep. That is only one example of water pollution, but one can go through every sphere of environmental concern—soil degradation, industrial and radioactive waste—and find the most horrific examples of massive environmental catastrophe on our doorstep. It is extraordinary that that has not been mentioned in the debate. It is perhaps a measure of how seriously we treat the problem. However, I think that the Government are starting to take it seriously. Some measures are now in place which begin to tackle the problem.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The subject of the former Soviet Union and the eastern bloc was mentioned earlier. My hon.


Friend may remember that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) deplored the role of the private sector in this country in environmental policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling human and environmental tragedies in eastern Europe occurred under state control, and that many British companies, including privatised water and power companies, are now active in eastern Europe, helping to sort out the problems that state control created?

Mr. Elletson: My hon. Friend is right. That was one of the more ludicrous arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in what was pretty well an entirely ludicrous speech. Of course state control, state communism and state planning have created the problem in eastern Europe, and the British private sector and European private companies are helping to clean it up.
My plea to the Minister is that we should consider further ways of helping British and European companies to tackle that problem. We have begun to do that through initiatives such as the know-how fund, and through organisations such as the London Initiative on the Russian Environment, but I hope that we shall find further ways of helping to solve a major environmental catastrophe on our doorstep.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall speak briefly and offer one cautionary example of what I believe is the threat posed to all of us by the implications for the environment of the Government's policy on the environment within their policies on Europe.
We heard much from the Secretary of State about how a good environmental policy must be operated internationally within the European and the international frameworks. We totally agree with that. Indeed, the members of the European Community who have gained most from being members of the Community are those whose national Governments work closely towards commonly held goals with the European Commission and with their regional governments.
Britain at the present time, with the current Government, is hopping along in a three-legged race on one leg, because we have no regional structure at all and the Government will not participate wholly in European goals because they believe that the most important policy on Europe is to opt out of everything to do with the social chapter.
I suspect that at least half of Conservative Members would, if they were honest, quite like a second opt-out, on the environmental issues of Europe, despite the protestations of the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier. In the deregulation task force's proposals for reform, which we have pored over long in the Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, there are no fewer than 12 pages of recommendations from big business, the masters and controllers of the Conservative party, of ways in which they want to deregulate; to remove what they consider to be burdens on business, including some imposed by European directives and some imposed in this country. In contrast, there is only a page and a quarter about the employment element. Twelve whole pages are devoted to regulations that are

considered to be burdens on business. My guess is that there is a desire to deregulate the environment out of existence.
One of the most welcome environmental initiatives of the European Commission's grant regime is the requirement that applicants for help under grant-aided projects should spell out an environmental impact assessment. That has put pressure on both private companies and big public authorities to look to the long-term effects of their proposals, rather than consider just short-term gains. When we read, under the heading "Environmental Assessment", that one of the recommendations of the task force is that
Existing requirements should be reconsidered and any further European Community proposals vigorously resisted",
we should be extremely concerned. This is one of the major benefits from Europe that business interests have wanted to see removed.
The same thing applies to utilities such as water, about which we have heard a good deal today. The task force says that there are often
unnecessarily high standards in new drainage and sewerage requirements.
The public do not believe that high standards in this field are unnecessary. Whatever business says, they want to see high standards retained, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members.
It is in this context that I relate my cautionary tale. As chairman of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group on water, I was approached last week by a delegation of business men involved in the manufacture of clay and plastic pipes. They came to say how concerned they were —so concerned that they offered me a briefing paper pointing out that Britain's sewers are under threat because of what has happened since the privatisation of water, following which the major water companies set up their own water industry certification scheme, commonly known as WICS. The problem here is that the industry itself is both giving certification and setting standards—not necessarily European standards—for this crucial aspect of sewer pipe work and drainage. This is clearly important for public health.
The most recent event of great concern to the Clay Pipe Manufacturing Association is the granting of a certificate outwith any European certification, for fairly thin plastic pipework—I was shown an example—currently used to take surface water away from motorways but proposed for use in sewerage. According to the association's tests, there is no doubt that such plastic pipes would not last the 100 years that we have heard Conservative Members say sewer pipes have to last. What concerns the association is that approval has been granted for the first time through an unprecedented private agreement with a single manufacturer.
My point is that, if we lose to bodies financed by private companies the control of the standard of products in industries as crucial as water and sewerage, the public will be deprived of the guarantee that the European Union offers through its certification schemes—the guarantee that we shall have healthy systems.
As the Secretary of State said, we must not talk this country down. Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has led the way in the provision of water of a high standard and sewerage and plumbing systems second to none. That is the result of the pre-war drive of public authorities to ensure good water and sewerage systems.
Our concern is that the damage resulting from the weakening of controls that has occurred over the past 15 years and the drive towards the privatisation of these crucial public utilities will become apparent not next week or next month but in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time. That would be the effect of 15 years' non-compliance with the very high standards that are necessary in this area.
I do not want to be accused of scaremongering, but I must draw attention to the fact that, according to one of today's newspapers, South West Water has had to agree to pay £400,000 in settlement of claims from people whose health was affected by contaminated drinking water six years ago. There are long-term dangers. In the case of the River Severn, recently there was major pollution. We are extremely concerned at the way in which individuals with particular interests in chemical companies are being appointed to water companies up and down the country, and to the Ofwat customer services committees.
We do not believe that the thrust of the Government's policy on the environment will have other than extremely dangerous consequences for the public in the long term.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: This whole debate is misconceived. It is based on highly dubious premises. It is a terrible mistake to think that it is good for Britain to work with other countries on a matter of this kind. How much easier it would be if the United Kingdom were not part of the European Union. What possible national advantage do we derive, for example, from efforts to clean up the Mediterranean? The only possible way of enhancing the attractions of the newly gilded Blackpool tower would be to ensure that Mediterranean beaches were filthy enough to make the one at Blackpool attractive despite the weather.
If only we were to withdraw within British territorial waters and ignore the European Union, we could spend the money that is currently being spent to clean up our drinking water on adjusting our methods of dealing with sewage. If, for example, we could build stores for it until the wind was in the right direction, we could use our new long sea outfalls to ensure that it ended up on some foreigners' beaches rather than on our own. At the moment, companies such as Southern Water are buying a channel tunnel drill to bore a huge and expensive tunnel under Brighton beach to deal with a bit of flood water.
What about the birds, which seem to preoccupy so many of our environmentalists? If, instead of trying to reverse the progress of this century, we were to accept that birds are messy creatures that spend an unacceptably large part of their time dirtying our lovely shiny motor cars, we could stop worrying about trying to protect them. What is more, so many of the birds about which people like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are worried are foreign. They come here only to mess up our eaves or eat our cereal crops or generally make a nuisance of themselves. In addition, they are probably unqualified birds that have not taken an exam in their lives.
Then there is all the fuss about trees. How can the rapidly expanding United Kingdom forests possibly compete with Scandinavian or Russian forests unless we are allowed to kill off large tracts of foreign forests with our industrial emissions? Hon. Members who want to confine European action to market activities are quite right. Take the common agricultural policy. Why go on arguing about set-aside when there are thousands of hectares of

land in the European Union so poisoned that it beats set-aside hands down? Let us not waste valuable cash trying to clean up the poisoned hectares. Instead, let us refer to them as set-aside land.
Another advantage of cutting loose from the European Union would be that many large United Kingdom companies that have plants in Europe and elsewhere could stop trying to equalise standards across their plants and return to the United Kingdom, where we could set our own standards well below those of other countries and thus repatriate many British jobs.
It could be argued that I am advocating a risky strategy. For example, what if European Union countries resent our acid rain or sewage outfalls? What if they retaliate against our trade? We need not worry about that. After all, if we were outside the European Union we would trade with countries so far away from us that they would not be directly affected.
Some suggest that we have a duty to our grandchildren to protect the environment. That is a dangerous argument. Generations of nannies are reputed to have said that a speck of dirt harmed no one. Natural selection will ensure—if we do not waste time and money on reducing fumes, for example—that we shall breed grandchildren who are immune to asthma, lead and many other current bogeys.
As I have said, the debate is ill-founded. We need to return to little England outside the European Union, setting our own robust standards of protection and giving not a fig for all those ridiculous foreigners across the channel. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister secretly shares my view that true Brits can swim anywhere and that all the talk about European Union or Rio standards is just a fiendish foreign conspiracy to take away our sovereignty, and should be resisted.

Mr. George Howarth: I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) directed his remarks more to the Government Front Bench than the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he was not speaking seriously. It seemed that the Minister did not take his remarks seriously and, that being so, I shall not take them up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
It has been a useful and interesting debate. I compliment my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). They demonstrated their usual grasp of the subject and their concerns in extremely useful speeches.
The Secretary of State made some very ambitious claims. Sadly, they seem not to be matched by specific actions on the Government's part. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a catalogue of extravagant claims which, unfortunately, had little substance. It was outrageous when he claimed that the Government have a better record overall than any other European Union state. I shall not go through all the criteria—[Interruption.] I note that Conservative Members shake their heads. I shall take only one example—the Government's compliance with the bathing water directive.
I have the figures for 1993, which are the most recent to be published. The Secretary of State said that Britain was at the top of the list and that Greece, Germany, Italy and all the other member states were at the bottom. When it comes to complying with the directive and meeting guidelines, Britain is not at the top of the list, as the Secretary of State


extravagantly claimed. In fact, it is the second dirtiest man in Europe. Greece meets 95 per cent. of the criteria and values. Ireland and Denmark respectively meet 86 per cent., Italy comes in with 85 per cent. and Portugal 75 per cent. Next to bottom of the list is Britain, with 36 per cent. The facts hardly meet the Secretary of State's rhetoric.
Problems are building up throughout Britain as a result of toxins. There are problems in Derbyshire, as there are with bathing water at Blackpool. It is a sorry state of affairs, and the Government should be ashamed of their record rather than trumpeting it.
No amount of hot air from the Minister, or from any other Ministers—we get plenty of it—can lead us away from the fact that airborne pollution in Britain, for want of a sensible strategy, has increased at the same rate as the incidence of asthma since 1979. Regional levels have increased by between 100 and 200 per cent. These are inescapable facts that reflect on the Government's record. The Secretary of State tries to disguise those facts, but he is unable to do so.
The Secretary of State claims that the imposition of value added tax on fuel is a green policy that proves the Government's green credentials to the British people and to Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He has never been able to refute the assertion that the imposition of VAT on fuel will reduce by only 1 per cent. the amount of fuel that is consumed. That is the reality. That is what should be set against the Government's exaggerated claims.
If the Government are serious about protecting the environment and reducing emissions, where is their energy conservation strategy? There is no such strategy. The Government do not have one. Where will the money come from for the Energy Saving Trust? The Minister will not be able to answer my question. The Government's policy is in tatters. I pay credit to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who attempted to introduce energy-saving legislation, but his Bill was wrecked by the Government's tactics.
A sensible energy-saving strategy would go far beyond anything that could be achieved by the imposition of VAT. If it were introduced sensibly—it would be quite cheap —emissions could be reduced by 4 per cent. That would indeed be a green measure. Instead, the Government have been panicked into imposing VAT on fuel because of the economic mess for which they are responsible.
Time does not permit me to tell the House of the difficulties that I have encountered in obtaining information from the Government or their agencies on sites of special scientific interest. Today, however inadequate it is, we have a report published by the National Audit Office on the protection and management of SSSIs. What is the truth about the Government's attempts, and those of their agencies, to protect wildlife and natural habitats in Britain? Since 1987, the instances of reported damage to SSSIs have increased from 94 in 1987 to 218 in 1991–92, the last year for which figures are available. Such instances have more than doubled. That is another failure on the Government's part.
The list continues. There are numerous examples of failure, but time does not permit me to refer to them.
Last week, in local government elections throughout the country, the people demonstrated that the Government's

overall performance is woeful and inadequate. They will do so again in next month's Euro-elections. The environment will be one of the key issues against which they will judge the Government. We need positive action, but all we get from the Secretary of State is froth and bubble. It is not good enough.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I can say only that the speeches of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—my view is shared by my hon. Friends—were ineffective and not appropriate to the debate. In one of the best speeches that I have ever heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make—I have heard a good few in my time, believe you me, in one way or another—he touched on every important topic that relates to the environment and to Europe generally. He dealt with each one in great detail. We are proud of our record and, as I say, my right hon. Friend spelt it out in some detail.
I shall comment on the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson). My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, in his inimitable fashion, talked with some knowledge about scrap metal and the recycling of metals, which he knows about through his connection with a prominent industrialist in his constituency. The British Secondary Metals Association and the British Scrap Metal Federation have spoken to me at great length about what they believe, with some justification, to be probably the oldest recycling industry in the world.
The point they make about their concerns and the effects of the European directive is one that we take to heart. I was pleased to be able to go on a visit to see what was involved in relation to the various sorts of recycling of waste and scrap metal and I have given them, as my hon. Friend said, a few months to consider the proposals which we have come up with. Incidentally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the point that he made about sewerage in Canterbury. He spelt out clearly the obvious difference between the Government and the Opposition, in that the money spent by a private water company on improving sewerage facilities in his constituency compares favourably with what happened before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, who spoke with great authority on matters relating to the eastern bloc, raised a very interesting point. Only the other day, the Minister for the Environment for the Ukraine came see me to talk about the special problems in his country. Incidentally, keen as he was to hear of our success stories on the water front, he also came to tell me and the Government about the problems of the former Soviet countries of one form or another.
It is interesting that the debate has been brought to the Floor of the House by the Opposition. They performed abysmally from start to finish and they are not interested —it has to be said—in the summary of the debate. Indeed, not many Opposition Members were here, but some have arrived belatedly, presumably to vote for a motion which did not really address the subject at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North talked about the beaches. He knows better than anyone how important Blackpool is to the tourist industry, not only of this country, but, arguably, of Europe as one of its


biggest tourist resorts. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend talk about our friend Michael Welsh, the MEP for that area, who has done so much to safeguard the beaches of Blackpool and its tourist industry. I know that the electors of Lancashire, Central will do their best to ensure that he is re-elected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North also made a point about the fairness of enforcement. I am delighted to agree that enforcement of the directives brought to this country is crucial. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and those of us who are involved in negotiating in Europe on those directives, fight so hard to protect our corner, from the British point of view, and to ensure that when a European directive becomes effective in this country it meets our interests and fits well with what we require.
Other hon. Members have raised points with which I would like to deal. Much has been made of the Energy Conservation Bill. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has dealt in considerable detail, and rightly so, with that Bill.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North suggested that we had no policy in that respect. The Government spend £100 million a year on energy conservation—something like a doubling of the amount previously allocated to that area. Investment in the home energy efficiency scheme, which is directed at the more vulnerable members of society, the low-paid and those who need assistance, has been increased to some £75 million, yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to say that we do not have an energy efficiency policy. It is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman would do well to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in some detail and learn precisely what has been and will be done.
One aspect of the Opposition motion that I find wholly unacceptable is the expression that we are somehow "lagging behind". They say that Britain should be at the forefront of environmental progress, rather than lagging constantly behind our European partners. It simply is not true and my right hon. Friend demonstrated cogently and articulately why that is the case. As he pointed out—it is worth reiterating—of the 22.5 per cent. of complaints laid against Britain, in terms of the European Commission, only 2 per cent. result in anything like infraction proceedings. The Labour party allies itself to any campaign to knock the United Kingdom and most of those campaigns are based on inaccuracies and false information.
Of course, we all recognise that we do not all meet the objectives that we set ourselves or which are set for us. However, the point worth reiterating to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and to Opposition Members is that we are better than Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. We argue our corner. We fight our corner from a position of support for the European Union, but for what we believe are sensible directives in Britain's best interest.
For example, how would the Labour party's support for the Euro-socialist manifesto, which removes the veto and advocates majority voting on everything, help? My right hon. Friend made particular reference to the carbon tax. How would the Labour party cope with something which it could not prevent from happening when it says that it supports that manifesto?
As everyone knows, there is a balance to be struck.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister clearly cannot have heard what I specifically told him earlier in the debate. The Labour party wishes to retain the national veto on matters relating to taxation. That is precisely the point that he is now ignoring.

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman is in a minority of one and he believes in majority voting on everything, how will he prevent the carbon tax, to which he said earlier he was opposed, from happening? He cannot. His policy does not make sense, like most of the rest of the stuff that he used this afternoon.
Therefore, there is a balance to be struck.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend talks about the balance. Does he share my concern at the effect of European judgment 57–89, which means that, once an area has been designated as a protected area, member states are unable to alter that designation for industrial or economic reasons? That means that rampant environmentalism could yet achieve for the expansion of our ports what the dock labour scheme failed to do. Is there not a balance that must be achieved between industry and the economy and the environment, and is it not highly suspicious that, this evening, we have heard not a single word about that threat from Opposition Members?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is a lawyer and he doubtless reads such matters with a great deal of interest and expertise. I can only say that, since he has raised the matter in such a way, I shall look at it closely and doubtless I shall have his help in so doing. However, he is right to say that a balance needs to be struck between environmental requirements and the costs of them.
We did not hear much from the Labour party about whether those costs had been examined and whether the commitments that it was making had been approved. Sustainable development must be sustainable if it is to be successful. That means carrying with us all sections of society. On every count, the Labour party shouts loudly and knocks our country's achievements. It offers not policies but panaceas—uncosted, unco-ordinated, uncontrolled and mostly illogical and ill thought out. It does not understand the effects on industry and commerce, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) referred, and it does not understand the effects on ordinary people.
Tagging along behind the Labour party, we have the Liberal Democrats, nodding and winking to every populist issue, never mind what was said the day before. Whatever doorstep they arrive on, they say what they think is appropriate for that doorstep and nothing else. What is more, both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have been rumbled by the many environmental organisations that are interested in those matters in the country.
Many of those organisations criticise Government, and rightly so. That is what they exist to do. However, often, they are privately complimentary for what we have achieved and, notably, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has achieved. But they have little or no time at all for the Opposition, whether Labour or Liberal. If we could harness the wind and hot air that emanates from Opposition Members, the country's energy requirements would be met from now to the end of the century.
By contrast, the Government, under the leadership of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, have faced,


are facing and will continue to face up to the difficult, sometimes costly and controversial decisions required to protect our environment for the future. The balancing that we need to do of the needs of the environment, with those of industry and commerce, which have to pay, are paramount in our considerations. That is why we have got it right and the Opposition have got it wrong, and that is why I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 298.

Division No.237]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H.


Alton, David
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bayley, Hugh
Fisher, Mark


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Berry, Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hall, Mike


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Cann, Jamie
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)





Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pike, Peter L.


Jowell, Tessa
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S.
Prescott, John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Litherland, Robert
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rendel, David


McAllion, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morgan, Rhodri
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mr. John Cummings and


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Eric Illsley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beggs, Roy


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian


Atkins, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Blackburn, Dr John G.






Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clappison, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Colvin, Michael
Horam, John


Congdon, David
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maginnis, Ken


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul





Marlow, Tony
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spring, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant, Piers
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sykes, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trimble, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Ray


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Tom
Willetts, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that the environment cannot be properly protected by national endeavour alone; acknowledges the importance of Europe-wide action to prevent pollution and improve environmental standards; applauds the work of the European Union and especially of the European Parliament in helping to safeguard the environment here in Britain; welcomes the lead taken by Her Majesty's Government in ensuring that the European Union plays an effective part in global environmental matters and implements the principle of sustainable development in all its activities; insists that Britain should continue to press for sensible and cost-effective environmental decisions on those matters which are properly the concern of the European Union; welcomes the progressive policies of the United Kingdom in all those other areas where national measures are appropriate; is


saddened by the failure of Her Majesty's Opposition and of the Liberal Democrat Party to support the necessary fiscal measures to reduce energy consumption; highlights their failure to evolve effective policy towards the environment and their desire to remove the United Kingdom's influence in the European Union by their insistence on majority voting and the abolition of the veto; and regrets the way in which they fail to support the Government's insistence that in internal matters it is for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide upon the most appropriate ways of reaching sustainable development goals.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS OF VEHICLES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11504/93, relating to weights and dimensions of vehicles; whilst supporting the proposal to consolidate the existing legislation, questions on grounds of subsidiarity the harmonisation of maximum lorry weights for national journeys; and considers that the proposed general weight limit of 44 tonnes for 6-axle vehicles conflicts with Community and United Kingdom policy intended to encourage combined road/rail transport for environmental reasons.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

Deregulation Orders

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Sir Peter Emery: I wish to support the recommendations of the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is far too much noise in the House. It is extremely discourteous. If those present do not wish to listen, they will kindly leave the Chamber.

Sir Peter Emery: I refer to the report entitled "Parliamentary Scrutiny of Deregulation Orders" and to the response received from Her Majesty's Government, which is House of Commons paper No. 238.
Before dealing with the details of the report, I will attempt to clear up three matters. First, it was not—and is not—for the Procedure Committee to consider whether Ministers should be given the power to repeal or amend primary legislation by deregulation or any of the principles arising from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. That is a matter for the House as a whole, and the House is proceeding to make a decision about it.
Secondly, it was argued that the Committee should not proceed or report until the Bill became an Act as it was suggested that that would prejudice its legislative passage. The Committee rejected that suggestion, because many people wanted to know how the House would deal with the deregulation orders. If amendments to the Bill were considered necessary because of the Committee's recommendations, it is unlikely that they would be made after the Bill had become an Act.
Lastly, there were adequate examples to allow the Committee to proceed once the Bill had reached the Second Reading stage. The Opposition will understand these illustrations. In 1966 the ombudsman was appointed before the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill received a Second Reading. In 1978, before the Scotland Bill became an Act, money was spent to bring the school in Edinburgh up to the required standard for an assembly. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds were spent but to no avail. So the Committee was quite certain that, at the request of the Government, there were enough precedents to allow us to proceed while the Bill was before the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a tradition of the Procedure Committee that it attempts to get all-party agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he rushed ahead with this inquiry in the face of opposition from the Opposition parties and that he has devalued the report because he made no attempt to carry the whole House with him in the discussions about it?

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is absolute nonsense. We wanted to attain as much agreement as possible. All the parties on the Committee agreed that we should proceed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: All Members on the Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: All members of the Committee, representing all parties, agreed that we should proceed. All the members decided initially whom we should ask to appear before the Committee.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I will finish this point and then I will be delighted to give way.
The Committee remarked in the report that the hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) refused to give evidence before the Committee. She was invited to do so—with the agreement of all members of the Committee—at the same time as other people were invited to appear. That is the first time that any person has refused to give evidence to the Committee. One must remember —but I hope not remember well enough to encourage a repetition—that at that time resolutions between the usual channels had broken down. So as far as I am concerned, the matter would be soonest forgotten, quickest mended.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman chairs the Committee and he knows that it is my view that the Committee works far better when the Conservative majority on the Committee does not act at the behest of the Government. Does he accept that Labour Members voted against the report because, while we accepted that the inquiry should take place—the right hon. Gentleman is correct in that respect—we did not believe that the report should come to the House before the Bill had been passed? That was the issue at stake, and that is why the hon. Member was quite right to refuse to come to the Committee. She was courteous and explained her reasons, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

Sir Peter Emery: I hope that, in my speech, I have tried to make it clear that the Committee proceeded in a normal manner. As I have suggested, Labour Governments have taken action and made preparations before a Bill has been enacted. I must thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee and has made his view clear. He took a considerable part in the Committee's deliberations. I am certain that he can make his own speech and that I shall not have to make it for him.
Let me turn to the recommendations which—I am glad to say—were not amended. To explain how they work, I must stress that the deregulation orders will be substitutes for primary legislation. The Committee did not consider that the Government's proposals went far enough, and all Committee members felt that. That is made clear in paragraph 21 of the Committee's report.
We considered that a deregulation order should not be considered as just another statutory instrument. After all, a statutory instrument is secondary legislation and provides for regulations which are empowered by the original Act. A deregulation order is entirely different and must be considered as such by the House, the Clerks and the lawyers outside. It is in effect primary legislation or, if it is not accepted as such, it is a substitute for primary legislation.
To illustrate that, let me point out that the Committee said in paragraph 16 of the report:
In our recommendations we have sought to ensure that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House.

Mr. Spearing: The statement which the Chairman of the Procedure Committee has just made is very important. He said that a deregulation order would not be a substitute but would be primary legislation. He also said that it should not be subject to any different form of examination from ordinary legislation. However, it does in the Bill.
The Committee about which we are talking will recommend but will not dispose of matters and it will not necessarily amend the statutory instrument. Does the Chairman of the Procedure Committee agree that there is a major distinction? The central part of the current Bill, through primary legislation, does exactly what the orders would do.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand the argument made by the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect. He has experience as an ex-Chairman of the Committee on Statutory Instruments. That matter was not for my Committee to consider; it was for the House. If the House gave Ministers that power, my job was to try to ensure that a full and thorough investigation was carried out
at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House.
The House therefore, we have argued, must be given the power to do that.
The Bill allows a Minister to make an order which is subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses to amend or repeal primary legislation which imposes a burden, providing that necessary protection is not removed. As a first step, the Minister must consult representatives of those who are likely to be affected. He then lays before Parliament a deregulation proposal, which is a draft of the order, with an explanatory document giving reasons for the measure, the benefits which would result from it, details of any necessary protection provided by the existing legislation, how the protection would be maintained, details of the consultation and how it had been taken into account.
It is at that stage that we must consider how the House should act. The Committee set out certain criteria which are set out in paragraph 21 of our report:
from the start the Committee would need to establish that the proposal for a deregulation order was within the powers conferred if the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is enacted … a Committee would have to examine the merits of a deregulation proposal to see whether it did remove a burden without reducing necessary protection … an opportunity should be provided for those affected by a deregulation proposal to express their concerns to the House … Members other than those serving on the Deregulation Committee should have an opportunity to express their views before the proposal is finalised in an order … there should be an opportunity to put forward changes to the deregulation proposal … the House should have the advice of a Committee on whether the proposal, as amended following the period for parliamentary consideration, should be made … when the House would want to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the final version of the order.
Anybody would accept that those are fairly strong criteria. Having established them, we decided that the Deregulation Committee should be one of the most senior Select Committees of the House, that it should comprise 16 members and that it should be given powers which were different from and greater than those of any other House of Commons Committee. How, then, will the Deregulation Committee work?

Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, on his casting vote, he came to the conclusion that the Deregulation Committee should not be chaired by an Opposition Member? Would not the Deregulation


Committee have been strengthened for obvious reasons —as Labour and Liberal Democrat Members believe—if it had been chaired by an Opposition Member?

Sir Peter Emery: As I said at the time, the chairmanship of Select Committees is normally decided by the usual channels and between the Whips. The numbers which are established in the break-up is left to the usual channels and it seemed that, whatever we said, that was going to happen anyway.

Dr. Tony Wright: This is an important issue. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the great strength of the Public Accounts Committee is that it has a Chairman from an Opposition party and, far from diminishing the standing of that Committee, it vastly enhances its status in the House. In these exceptional circumstances, would not it have been sensible to include such a provision in the report?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has made a point which I hope was heard by the usual channels. I can understand it and the point could well be argued, but that does not alter the fact that the decision will be made by the usual channels. I believe that it is right that the usual channels should take into consideration the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Yes. I am trying to get on, but I am not succeeding.

Mr. Steen: Is it not true that the House has passed far too much legislation during the past 30 or 40 years, and that there is a surfeit of legislation? We are now getting thousands of directives flooding in from Europe. Will not the Deregulation Committee try to speed up the repeal of legislation which has become antiquated or which is no longer working?
It is important that the Chairman of the Committee is a Member of the ruling party in order to expedite the deregulation and the repeal of laws which are hostile to the revival and the future of this country, and to speed up the process by which industry and commerce are no longer hidebound and restricted by regulations. The Opposition may appreciate those regulations, but the Government recognise that they must be repealed to expedite the future of our industry.

Sir Peter Emery: The usual channels will have heard that intervention as well.
The Committee therefore believes that the issue will be decided by the usual channels—it will be up to them to make the decision.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during proceedings on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill the Minister envisaged a system involving a Chairman's sift? The idea was to control the number of matters coming before the Committee. Did the Procedure Committee realise that, in the exceptional circumstances of the operation of a Chairman's sift, it would indeed be right for the Committee Chairman to be a member of one of the Opposition parties?

Sir Peter Emery: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The Committee decided that there should be 16 permanent members serving throughout a Parliament so that they could become expert in the work.
To return to how the Deregulation Committee would work, it would greatly assist hon. Members if they turned to the appendix to the report, which contains a flow diagram showing how the Committee would carry out its tasks.
I have explained how the Government will lay the draft order. Then, legal views on the vires should be sought. At the same time the Committee should ask the Clerks to consult the Clerks in the House of Lords to find out whether, if evidence is to be taken, it can be taken jointly.
Once the Committee has considered this advice, it will decide whether it needs further evidence or advice, or whether oral and written evidence should be taken. Once again, the Clerks should be consulted.
One of our recommendations was that the Committee should be able to call Ministers. As shown by the Government's response, this was the only recommendation that the Government did not agree with. Indeed, they say:
The power to summon Ministers, which would be unprecedented, is unnecessary, since Ministers with responsibility for a deregulation proposal will be anxious to assist the Deregulation Committee with its work".
The Government cannot see a time when Ministers would refuse to attend the Committee as witnesses if their attendance is requested.
That is the strongest statement I have ever heard by the Government about the attendance of Ministers at such Committees.
Having decided whether or not to take oral evidence, the Committee would then make its first report to the House. That report would say that the proposals had been unanimously agreed, or that amendments were necessary, or that the order should not be made at all. If the order should not be made, the Committee recommends that the proposal be withdrawn, or that the Government revise it, or that they introduce primary legislation.
If the Committee decides, on the evidence, that amendments to the order should be made, those amendments should be sent to the Government. The Government have made it clear that they would pay particular attention to any amendments or proposals recommended by the Committee. When the Government eventually lay an order, the Committee will be able to see whether it has emerged exactly as drafted—if it was unanimously agreed to—or whether the Government have altered it in any way.
If the Committee decides that the Government's amendments are unsatisfactory, it will adopt a certain approach. If the order has been unanimously agreed to, of course, the Committee will adopt a different approach. If, on the other hand, a majority of the Committee has merely approved the measure, a third approach will be taken.

Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the new Committee would take advice from Speaker's Counsel and from counsel in the House of Lords to decide on the vires. Does he agree that the deregulation Bill is so widely drawn as to make it difficult to decide that any deregulation measure was ultra vires? Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments look not only at the vires of a measure but at the clarity of its drafting. Would


it not therefore be logical for some committee to examine those areas right at the start, instead of discussing the merits?

Sir Peter Emery: In many ways the hon. Gentleman is correct. I believe that, as with the Statutory Instrument Committees, this Committee should make a decision on the vires at the outset, because it would be nonsensical if the Deregulation Committee started on its work before an order had cleared the hurdle that a Statutory Instrument Committee would usually put before it. To that extent, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remark.
If there is not unanimous agreement to an order, it will be reported back to the House and a debate of 90 minutes can take place, if that is wanted. Opposition Members or those who voted against the order may, however, decide that a debate is not necessary—but that decision rests with the House. If the Committee unanimously supports an order and believes that it should be proceeded with, it will be put forthwith; but if the Committee considers that the amendments are unsatisfactory and is against approving the order, it will make a recommendation to the House in those terms.
Before the order can be presented for approval, the Government must put down a motion to disagree with the Committee's recommendation, so an order cannot proceed unless the House disagrees with the Committee. As a number of hon. Members have argued strongly, the House should have a chance to say how it would like an order to be amended. The motion to disagree with the recommendation of the Committee is amendable, so the House will have the chance to express its feelings about the order as amended and about the Government's motion to disagree with the Committee.

Mr. Steen: I recognise my right hon. Friend's distinction as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but is not the whole point of the deregulation Bill to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and information gathering in the system? Surely the procedures that my right hon. Friend has outlined will be a nightmare for all involved.

Sir Peter Emery: What my hon. Friend must understand, and I tried to make absolutely clear at the start, is that the deregulation order is the equivalent of primary legislation. If it did not exist, the Government would have to introduce individual Bills to deal with it. It is right that there should be a fast track. If everybody agrees with it, that is fine. My hon. Friend has what he wants, but that is only if everybody agrees with it. If there is some doubt, there must be a debate on the Floor of the House. But if there is disagreement in Committee, the Government must show the House that they disagree with its views. There must be a three-hour debate to do that, and that motion can be amendable. I believe that that is right when one is dealing with primary legislation.
The Government recommended that 40 days be available for the Committee to deal with matters. In paragraphs 78 and 79 of our report we suggested that in some instances, particularly in the event of a detailed inquiry, 40 days might not be sufficient. In that circumstance, the period should be extended to 60 days. I am glad to see that the Government are willing to go ahead with that.
What powers did we recommend that the Committee should have? I ask hon. Members to turn to paragraph 117

of the report, where we make it absolutely clear that it should have the power to send for persons, papers and records. It says
(including Ministers of the Crown)",
but I have already dealt with that. It continues:
to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
to report from time to time;
to appoint specialist advisers;
to adjourn from place to place (within the UK)—
it is not to be a Committee that travels around the world—
to meet with the equivalent Lords Committees to take evidence; to appoint a sub-committee with a quorum of two to meet with a sub-committee of the Lords Committee—
if necessary;
to exchange evidence with other Commons Committees;
to have the assistance of Counsel to the Speaker;
to be nominated for a whole Parliament;
and
to admit Members who are not members of the Committee to ask questions of witnesses when evidence is taken".
Because a Committee of 60 cannot cover every interest and geographical area, and because it will be open to hon. Members to give evidence, a Member may well want to question the Minister or a witness. We have suggested, therefore, that the procedure is used, as in the European Committees, whereby a Member gives notice to the Chairman that he wishes to question the Minister or witness, and the Chairman is given the freedom to call such a person to put a question within the time scale that he has set for the questioning of the Minister. It does not ensure that the Member will be called, but it does allow the Member to argue why he needs to be called—he may be the only Member from the area affected; or perhaps he is the only Member representing a certain industry. I have no doubt that the Chairman would therefore want to ensure that, where there was special pleading, it could be put. That is indeed a new way of proceeding.
I am pleased that the Government were asked in paragraph 121 to report to the House on our recommendations. In their report on Monday, they did so. The power to call a Minister and the addition of bringing to the House a deregulation order prior to the Committee's report in exceptional circumstances, which they suggest at the end of a Session, are the only basic alterations to the whole of our recommendations.
The Procedure Committee, in the words of the Financial Times of Monday last,
had recommended tough new powers … to scrutinise all deregulation proposals.
They are powers that will work. Close examination will allow evidence to be given in detail from whomever the Committee wishes, with a call on Ministers and the use of outside experts advising the Committee. That would ensure a thorough and exhaustive consideration before any recommendation was made to the House, with the Committee ensuring that the House has the last word.
Although our recommendations are tough and comprehensive, the Government have shown that they are willing to go along with them. I congratulate the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who has given evidence and has considered the matters in full, on being so wise.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I am glad to be able to respond to what I think were the wishes of the House, and the expressed wishes of the Procedure


Committee, by arranging an early debate on its report on the important issue of deregulation orders. I shall be fairly brief, partly because the Government's views were, I hope, clearly set out in the report on Monday, and I cannot add a great deal at this stage, and partly because the principal purpose of the debate is to hear the views of the House on the report and, indeed, the Government's response.
I sense also that a fair number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to make a contribution, and I am anxious to hear them. I am also conscious that there is some pressure tonight on my opposite number on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I shall take this opportunity to say that I appreciate that he will not be able to stay throughout the proceedings as he would have wished.
The whole House should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his Committee, both for their work and for carrying it out so quickly. That has enabled us to hold this debate—I realise that this is a point of controversy with some—before the House deals on Report with the clauses of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which provide for the deregulation orders. I disagree with those who think that it was inappropriate. If the House was to be invited to decide on whether there should be such orders, it was sensible that it should have a fairly clear idea of the basis on which the machinery should operate before it came to that decision.
As the House will have seen from the detailed response that we published on Monday, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton kindly acknowledged, the Government were able to respond positively to the Committee's report. There is just one exception—one could say one and a half, but essentially one, on which I will touch later—where we were not able to agree; apart from that, however, we have agreed to all the Committee's recommendations. I shall not attempt to rehearse them all in view of the effective and comprehensive way in which my right hon. Friend set them out.
As I have said, we shall listen carefully to the views expressed in the debate. Once the Bill is enacted—as we hope and expect—we will introduce proposals for new Standing Orders so that when the first deregulation proposals come before the House the scrutiny procedures will already be in place. In saying that, I should re-emphasise—I am sure that it will come up when my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton addresses the matters in our debates tomorrow—that the Government do not propose to use, or even try to use, the procedure to deal with large and controversial amendments to primary legislation.
The Bill provides that the power cannot be used to remove any "necessary protection". I appreciate that that entails a degree of subjective judgment, but if the new Deregulation Committee thinks that the Minister's judgment is wrong, it will be able to say so when it considers the proposal that the Minister lays before Parliament. I can give the House an assurance that the Government would be bound to take an adverse recommendation from the Deregulation Committee extremely seriously, and in normal circumstances we would expect either to submit a revised proposal or to withdraw the proposal altogether.

Mr. Spearing: We understand the different views about protection. Leaving that aside, however, is not the Leader of the House falling into the trap, as have so many Leaders of the House and Ministers over the years, of saying what the present Government are willing or not willing to do, whereas the Standing Orders that he has talked about and the legislation to be debated tomorrow will exist for Government after Government? The right hon. Gentleman seems to be falling into that rather serious trap.

Mr. Newton: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman sees that as a trap; I see it as a point that he can legitimately make. I forget whether he and I entered the House at the same time—he may have been here a little longer than my 20 years—but I must tell him that I have rather more confidence in this place, and in Members of Parliament. In the end, Governments can pass only what this place is prepared to let them pass.
This may seem a curious thing for someone who has been a Minister for 15 years to say, but in my experience Ministers do not lightly ignore clear, strong feelings in the House, and those expressed by Committees of the House. There is a degree of independence among hon. Members which goes beyond what the hon. Gentleman appears to believe.

Mr. Bennett: If the Leader of the House really wants to reassure us, would not the simplest way be to ensure that the Government do not have a majority on the new Committee?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and others have already raised that point, and he will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said about the chairmanship. He will also know that, under Governments of both parties—for as long as I have been here and, indeed, rather longer—the convention, and the normal expectation, has been for those with a majority in the House to have a majority on its Committees.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose—

Mr. Newton: I give way to the Liberal Benches.

Mr. Kirkwood: I would certainly be prepared to concede that point, but I would be much more confident about doing so if the right hon. Gentleman would concede the point about the chairmanship being in the hands of the Opposition.

Mr. Newton: I have to say—I had better say it straightforwardly—that I am not convinced that that would be appropriate, but I will not go beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is, in terms of his own specialised version, "a bit of the usual channels"; he will therefore understand the way in such matters are discussed and—hopefully—resolved.
To return to the thrust of my speech, in no circumstances will we simply brush the Committee aside. As I told the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I do not believe that the House would collectively allow this or any other Government simply to brush aside a Committee of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has described. If, when the draft deregulation order is laid, the Committee is still not satisfied, it can recommend the rejection of the order. Again, the Government would want to think very carefully


—indeed, they would have to—about whether they should nevertheless proceed. As my right hon. Friend explained, if the Government thought it right to do so, there would have to be a three-hour debate on an amendable motion. I really do not think that it can be suggested that changes could somehow be smuggled through without scope for proper parliamentary debate.
In acknowledging the special nature of the proposed orders, I must draw attention to an essential ingredient in the arrangements—the fact that the initial proposal itself is not presented to the House simply on a "take it or leave it" basis. One of the reasons for requiring a Committee to look into a deregulation proposal—with provision for the involvement of other hon. Members—is to enable any possible amendments to be considered at the preliminary stage, before the final version of the order is laid.
We have tabled an amendment to the Bill—we hope that it will be moved tomorrow—to require the Minister to report to Parliament any changes made to the proposal as a result of representations made, or resolutions or reports of either House or their Committees, during the scrutiny period. If the Minister does not make the amendments that the Committee wanted and fails to give it an explanation for not doing so that it accepts, the Committee will be entitled to recommend the rejection of the order, with the consequences that I have described.
As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton acknowledged, we have also tabled—and hope to move tomorrow—an amendment to give effect to the Procedure Committee's recommendation about the length of time needed for the Deregulation Committee's inquiries. The Bill gives the Committee 40 days in which to carry out any inquiry into a proposal, excluding any period when either House is adjourned for more than four days. The Procedure Committee has suggested that in a few cases 40 days might not be enough, and that in those cases the period should be extended to 60 days. As we have always intended the Deregulation Committee to have enough time to conduct whatever inquiries are thought necessary, we have readily tabled an amendment to meet the Procedure Committee's concerns.
The only issue on which we cannot go quite so far as the Procedure Committee wanted was the question whether the Deregulation Committee should be empowered formally to summon Ministers to appear before it. That is simply because rather wider issues are raised, including—I hope that this will not be dismissed—the question whether one House should be able to require the attendance of a Member of the other House, which would clearly be implicit in such a power.
I see no reason to suppose, however, that the absence of such a formal power would hinder the Deregulation Committee's work. Ministers will co-operate fully if the Committee needs to take evidence from them; indeed, they will normally be keen to meet the Committee to explain their proposals and gain support for them. Frankly, I cannot envisage circumstances in which the responsible Ministers would refuse to appear.
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the Procedure Committee again for the thoroughness with which they have examined these matters. As a result of their work, we shall be in a position to present the House—at the appropriate time—with proposals for a scrutiny procedure which I believe will be

both robust and flexible. I expect that to be both an assistance and an assurance to the House when it debates the deregulation order-making power tomorrow.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for presenting the report of his Committee. I also thank the Lord President for being so understanding, and for accepting my apology for not being able to stay for the whole debate. It is no wish of mine not to be present, but I apologise to the House none the less. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Honiton on having secured time from the Leader of the House for a debate on the Floor of the House, although I suspect that it comes too late to have an impact on the legislation.
The Government's approach to the provision of time for the debate of Procedure Committee reports is episodic and essentially pragmatic. It is worth exploring that topic before dealing specifically with the report. The Procedure Committee has an uneven record of success in securing debates in the Chamber on its reports. Last year we were able to discuss its first report on parliamentary questions and related matters—a valuable piece of work—but the other reports from last year, and two from this year, have still not been debated.

Sir Peter Emery: Press for them.

Mr. Brown: I do. I have pressed particularly vigorously for discussion of the report on budgetary reform and this year's follow-up report on Budget procedure, which have not been debated on the Floor of the House, but the Government have gone ahead and introduced the new unified Budget without seeking the House's views on procedure.
There is a marked parallel between the handling of the unified Budget issue and the report that we are discussing today. On the unified Budget procedure, the Government made key changes in the Finance Bill of 1993 before the Procedure Committee had even reported; they have continued to refuse time to debate the two relevant Procedure Committee reports, and they have ignored the Committee's principal recommendations. They guillotined the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House and on a day-to-day basis in Committee, and encouraged their own Back Benchers to filibuster on less controversial matters so that more controversial issues ran up against the guillotine, thereby relieving Ministers of the task of explaining the clauses to the House. Ministers may have found that convenient, but the House did not. As for the public spending aspects of the unified Budget procedure, the Government have not allowed the House to debate the details of their public expenditure plans since May 1991 —so much for the unified Budget.
It should be clear to the House that, when considering questions of procedure, including reports from the Procedure Committee, the Government are insistent—occasionally brutally insistent—on putting the narrow interests of the Executive before the interests of the House. They dealt with Parliament in a high-handed way over the unified Budget, an issue on which—in principle—Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour agree. The Opposition were also willing to discuss and reach agreement on the practicalities, but to no avail.
No such consensus in principle underpins the debate on the deregulation orders. The Labour party is strongly opposed in principle to such an enhancement of the powers of the Executive: there is no precedent for conferring on Ministers the generalised powers on which the Government intend to ask the House to vote tomorrow. The principle is completely unacceptable to the Opposition and we are unable and unwilling to offer the Procedure Committee any advice on how practical effect should be given to the Government's desire to extend the power of Ministers.
The Opposition's view is clearly stated in the letter dated 23 February sent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The letter is helpfully reproduced as an appendix to the report, although it is incorrectly dated 24 February. The reply from the right hon. Member for Honiton is dated 24 February. In his letter, the right hon. Member for Honiton argues the case for examining the procedures before the Bill receives a Third Reading. He argues that representations from his Committee, if received before the Third Reading debate, could mitigate the worst excesses of which he implicitly believes the present Government to be capable.
The experience of the unified Budget inquiry does not bear that out. In practice, the Government ignored the views of the Procedure Committee and, indeed, pre-empted some of them. If it is any consolation to the right hon. Member for Honiton, I can tell him that the Government did not take any notice of the Opposition either, and I have no doubt that the same is intended today.
There is a clear disagreement between us and the Government on this fundamental issue of principle. We are opposed to the implementation of the Bill, so we have no view to put to the Procedure Committee as to how it should be done. Our view is that it should not be done and the House has not yet agreed that it should be done.
Opposition Front-Bench Members have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the House and we have debated alternatives—that is the function of a Standing Committee—but no one, except possibly Conservative Members of the Procedure Committee, could possibly conclude that by seeking to amend the Bill in Standing Committee Opposition Members were conceding the principle underpinning the legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, I make it clear that we do not concede such a principle.
Disappointingly, the report is partisan. The inclusion in the report of paragraph 6, which refers to the Opposition's unwillingness to elaborate on our written submission, is unfair and offensive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South had written to the Committee stating the considered views of the parliamentary Opposition. In summary, we do not agree with what is being done, so we are unable to give the Procedure Committee evidence as to how it should be done. Conservative Members of the Committee are perfectly entitled to disagree, but I do not accept that a Committee of this sort should vote into its report, on the casting vote of the Chairman, a paragraph as snide and unfair as paragraph 6.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman might have recorded that the second letter, written with the agreement of the entire Procedure Committee—including, at that time, Labour Members—was not even acknowledged.

Mr. Brown: There is no need for any acknowledgement. Our response had been clearly stated in the letter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South sent to the Committee and which has been recorded as an appendix. That is all that we have to say on the matter. For the right hon. Member for Honiton to use his casting vote to include in his Committee's report, with the votes of only Conservative Members—no Opposition Member voted for it—such a snide and unpleasant paragraph as paragraph 6 is completely against the spirit in which Committees of the sort over which he usually presides should proceed.
I notice that the right hon. Member for Honiton is trying to impose on the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, a requirement to attend in person before his Committee to explain party political decisions taken inside the Labour party. Yet Ministers of the Crown are not willing to accept an obligation to attend the Committee to explain matters of public legislation. However that can be described, it cannot be described as even-handed. It is clearly politically partisan.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour Members on the Committee fully accepted the explanation offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? That is why we voted against the paragraph and against the report. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) understands the reasons why. Although this is the most political place on earth, does my hon. Friend agree that there are strong arguments for a Committee such as the Procedure Committee to try, as far as possible, to avoid the strong party politics of the Chamber? We have done so to a large extent in previous Parliaments, certainly in the last Parliament. Is it not unfortunate that the Procedure Committee is increasingly being looked upon as an instrument of the Government?

Mr. Brown: I accept my hon. Friend's case entirely. I shall deal with his second point later. From reading the report, I appreciated the point that he made about the Opposition accepting fully the views that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South put to the Committee.

Mr. Newton: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman spent the first five minutes of his speech denouncing the Government for not acceding immediately to every recommendation of the Procedure Committee in respect of the unitary Budget. That was followed by apparent agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches that the Procedure Committee is somehow the Government's poodle. That raises questions of consistency.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is right to be fair to his right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, and his right hon. Friend was fair to him. There is nothing inconsistent in what I have said. The Leader of the House knows that we wish to debate the report on the unified Budget because there is wide agreement underpinning the issue of principle that there should be a unified Budget and that tax and spending decisions should be brought closer together if possible. The Government say that that is their view in principle, but they refuse to do it in practice.
This is something entirely different, and there is no agreement on the question of principle, so it is invidious to


suggest that somehow the Opposition should take part in the discussion on how the principle should be put into practice. We do not agree that it should be done at all, and when we are the Government, all this will be repealed.

Sir Peter Emery: There needs to be some consistency and fairness in the argument. Labour Members took part in the cross-questioning of witnesses and in all the discussions prior to the final vote. They did not vote against or amend any of the recommendations that we had talked about, but voted only against a factual recording about not giving evidence. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I would not try to impute otherwise, but it is not fair for him to suggest that the Opposition played no part in the working of the Committee when in fact they did.

Mr. Brown: With respect, I was not trying to suggest that the Opposition played no part in the workings of the Procedure Committee. Whatever our complaints about partisanship, we have not yet reached the stage of boycotting the Committee. However, I notice that the Committee's procedures were characterised by a series of partisan votes—votes which could be categorised as being on party political lines alone. An example of that is the paragraph raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). He attempted to make hon. Members who wished to question individual deregulation measures—presumably Opposition Members—appear as witnesses to be cross-examined before the scrutinising Committee, rather than having the right to cross-examine other witnesses if they had some special interest.
Since the propositions that are to be discussed by the Committee will all have originated with Ministers and their civil servants, it is surely the role of Members of Parliament to question Ministers and civil servants and not the other way round. One can see how such a proposition would be a partisan advantage for the Government; it would not be an advantage for anyone who wished to question the Government.
Fortunately, the proposition of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was so outrageous that it was voted down in Committee; I pay tribute to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) for resisting what I believe was the most absurd of the tyrannies that his fellow Conservatives had in mind for us. Nevertheless, the fact that such a proposition was even considered by the Committee demonstrates the partisan way in which it was proceeding.
Another example of partisanship occurred when the Committee came to consider the proposition that the Deregulation Committee should be chaired by a member from an Opposition party. Again, that was thrown out on the casting vote of the Chairman. That did not seem an unreasonable proposition for a report to contain if it is aiming at bipartisanship. After all, the Committee only makes recommendations, suggestions or submissions. A report is not binding on the Government. It is not mandatory that the Committee should produce only things that the Government can accept.
It is especially important that we have a recommendation of that sort, given what we heard earlier about the Chairman sifting proposals before they are put to the Committee. I understand that the Clerks have advised that it cannot be done, but some consideration at least was given to doing it. The Government investigated whether it would be possible, as they thought that it would be to their

advantage. Presumably they thought that the Chair would listen carefully to the Government rather than take a more independent view—hence their opposition to the proposal that the Chair should be drawn from the Opposition parties.
There is an interesting parallel with the Public Accounts Committee. It is almost a parliamentary cliché to say that Public Accounts Committee reports command great authority because of the unanimity among its members which underpins its reports. The Public Accounts Committee deals with contentious issues—losses to the taxpayer as a result of privatisation, fraud at the Ministry of Defence and corrupt Conservative quangos in Wales —yet it is always able to present a unanimous and clear view to the House. Tribute is routinely paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including PAC members, Treasury Ministers and Opposition Treasury spokesmen, to the work and skill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon); his Committee's reports are important and are taken seriously.
This Procedure Committee report has no such value: its only function is to provide a vehicle for the Leader of the House and the Minister for Industry to set out in detail how the Executive will allow the House to deal with deregulation orders. Conservative Members agree with what is being done and Opposition Members do not—that is all that the report tells us.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not want to be the odd man out—I seem to be the only Conservative Member who proposes to speak in the debate—but I have to say, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has done a magnificent job in a short time, that the report is another example of bureaucracy. It contains an amazing amount of paper and a complicated flow chart, which I cannot easily follow, showing an immensely complicated means of repealing measures.
Regulations are passed very quickly in the House. Statutory instruments flow in here quickly; we pass them upstairs in a moment. The deregulation procedure, however, will be immensely complicated.

Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend, whose interest in deregulation I share, has not misunderstood. Where regulation exists in a statutory instrument, it can be removed by another statutory instrument. We are debating regulation in primary legislation. That is the important point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) sought to make.

Mr. Steen: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is making an important intervention, and I am grateful to him. [Laughter.] I shall not be deterred by the mirth of Opposition Members.
It is much easier to pass measures in the House than to repeal them. Directives flood in from Europe, which we are unable to stop but which, once on the statute book, are very difficult to repeal. A good example is directive 92/58, which proposes minimum requirements for safety signs in the workplace. All fire safety signs that do not show a little man running up or down stairs will not meet the requirements of the directive and will have to be replaced when it comes into force on 24 June.
The directive will impose enormous costs on offices, businesses and local authorities. Officials in this place will


want to ensure that we are ahead of the game. Every door in the Palace of Westminster will show a little man running up or down stairs. Do not existing signs—for example, those that say, "Fire Exit"—give sufficient information? Apparently they do not. According to the Health and Safety Executive, the directive is mandatory. Doors on every public building will need to have such signs so that everybody will know that there is a fire exit.
I listened to the brilliance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in explaining this complex procedure—I believe that it is more complex than Opposition Members think—under which fire exit signs in cinemas, theatres and concert halls will have to change overnight on 24 June and at an enormous cost.

Dr. Wright: Would the hon. Gentleman be perfectly happy for Ministers of a future Labour Government to have the power to sweep away primary legislation by ministerial order?

Mr. Steen: That is a hypothetical question. It is also speculative: the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about whether there will ever be a future Labour Government. I understand what he is saying, however, and the public should have some protection against what a future Labour Government might do. I am talking about something slightly different—the bureaucracy that we are introducing for past rules and regulations as opposed to the ease with which new rules and regulations are introduced without so much as a by your leave.
I gave the example of the little man running up and down on the fire exit because it is a good one. I wonder how many hon. Members or people outside are aware that this directive is mandatory. Nobody knows about it, yet millions of pounds of taxpayers' and private enterprise money will be spent on implementing it.
It is similar to the directive that has crept in in respect of filing cabinets that are not fitted with anti-tilt devices. I wonder how many people know that that Brussels directive was interpreted by the Health and Safety Executive to mean that it is unsafe to have any item of equipment at work that is not secure. The Serjeant at Arms, like many others, has interpreted that to mean that filing cabinets are dangerous. They are dangerous only if one opens four drawers and the cabinet falls over and knocks one on the head. Once someone has made that mistake, they will not repeat it.
New regulations are eating away at the public and private purse and destroying our economy's ability to revive. They are constantly reducing the profitability of private enterprise and increasing the amount of public money that must be spent on implementation.
I have nothing against a lengthy and complicated procedure, as suggested in the report, but can we please try to do something about the directives, which, as I said, are being allowed to creep in and destroy the economy? I am attacking not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but the way in which directives flow into this country and are passed only for the public suddenly to wake up and find such dreadful things happening.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House and the public owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) because, despite the levity that greeted his remarks, what he said was genuine vox pop: he expressed what many people think. There may be a great deal of truth in what he said about directives from outside but we are discussing a different issue. I commend to him a weekly report published by the Select Committee on European Legislation which details all the directives.
The hon. Member for South Hams spoke about the regulations that emanate from Whitehall either with the signature of a Minister or that of someone whom a Minister has designated by law to authorise him. In other words, they come from the Executive, who are appointed by a majority of hon. Members and are accountable to them. I think that we can all agree on one matter. Suppose that a filing cabinet falls over, causes a serious injury to or even kills someone and the case ends in a coroner's court. The event may lead to a multiplicity of regulations that may appear necessary after a disaster but which, in practice, might be simple over-regulation. That is what the hon. Member for South Hams was complaining about.
I became involved in events following the Marchioness disaster, which was a great tragedy. It was rumoured—I emphasise that it was only a rumour—that the Department of Transport was going to order river boat operators above Teddington lock to have on board lifeboats, rockets and rations for 14 days. It did not go that far—it was only a story—but we can all cite practical examples of over-regulation from our daily life. To some extent, therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for South Hams.

Mr. Steen: I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his generous remarks and I am pleased that he recognises that there is a serious problem. However, the problem is rather different from that which he describes. The problem has to do not only with rules and regulations but with their interpretation by a large number of officials. In addition, we have to contend with notes and guidance notes.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the subject under discussion. I always permit a little latitude, but he has now had sufficient rope.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, the interpretation is contained in the regulations themselves; it is not, as I understand it, a matter for the courts.
I thank the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his courtesy in inviting me to give evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure and for the courtesy accorded to me while I did so, even though the thesis that I advanced in my initial letter to that Committee has not been dealt with in the Committee's report or elsewhere. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene earlier, when he was saying, in effect that the procedure must be at least as thorough. The right hon. Gentleman nods, thereby emphasising the fact that we have a new type of regulation equivalent to primary legislation. He nods again, and I believe that the complexity and thoroughness with which the advice is given in the


Committee's report proves that very point. I shall later make a constructive suggestion in this connection which may appeal to the Leader of the House.
The problem that we are discussing—let us call it the South Hams question—needs to be tackled in a democracy, but not necessarily by giving greater power to the Executive of the day, because the Executive might be responsible for inappropriate, outdated, over-complex and ill-balanced regulations, and might inflict a larger burden than is warranted by the importance of the case. Is not the whole process of statutory law, especially Acts of Parliament, about the balance between private rights and freedoms and protection and the carrying of burdens? Is not that what parliamentary democracy is all about?
I understand that in Elizabethan times there was uproar in the House when it was decided that one should only drive on the left. What about income tax and taxation in general? Taxation is a burden and a privilege—it is a matter of getting the balance right. The crossrail legislation, or any public or private Bill, involves argument about collective advantage versus private protection. In a sense, Acts of Parliament are about the balance between burden and privilege.
The Government have recognised the problem—the South Hams question—but have come down on one side only. They have chosen to stress the reduction of the burden and have not given sufficient attention to the other aspect, which is the collective advantage. Indeed, they have done so in a way that gives the advantage to the Executive. There is no doubt about that. The diagram on page xxv of the Select Committee's report is complex but the Deregulation Committee can only advise, not dispose. I was asked how I would give the Committee more power and I said that it could be given the power to dispose—the Standing Committees have them and the Government have them.
I thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving way earlier. I know his views on parliamentary democracy but he will not be the Leader of the House for ever. He said that no Leader of the House and no Government would brush aside the Committee's recommendations. At one time, the Select Committee on European Legislation—this is the sort of thing that worries the hon. Member for South Hams—could call for time to be allocated on the Floor of the House or in Standing Committee to discuss outside regulations and directives. The Government decided that that was rather too time-consuming and that all such debates should take place in Committee but said that, if there was a request to debate the issues on the Floor of the House, they would consider it carefully. That was said in the Chamber when we were discussing directives.
On 30 March, the Select Committee strongly recommended that there should be a debate as soon as possible on the Floor of the House on the proposals for the enlargement of the Community. It is a very important issue, but the weeks have passed and still there was no debate. The issue is to be discussed by the Council of Ministers next Monday but we have not debated it in the House.
I do not have a copy of it with me, but the Leader of the House wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in which he said that such a debate would be impractical. He has had since 30 March to make the necessary arrangements but has brushed aside the recommendation of what is not, but what is supposed to be,

an analogous Committee, whose very purpose was to make recommendations about debates. He has brushed aside a recommendation that he said would not be brushed aside if we adopted the proposals in question.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's point and the spirit in which it is made. I do not remember whether he was present during business questions last week, when I made it clear that the circumstances are not quite as he describes them. We did not know that it was a proposal until it was cleared by the European Parliament only last week, at which point it became clear that it would be put before the Council of Ministers next week. That left very little time, and it is against the background of a full debate on Europe next Monday.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that issue—I had not mentioned it because I did not want to make my speech too long. I am sorry to hear what he said, because it means that the Government had to wait for another Parliament to reach a conclusion before agreeing to discuss a matter recommended for debate by a Committee of the House. Surely that is what he is saying, in effect, and I am sorry to hear it.

Mr. Newton: I hope that there is no misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman has put his point in an uncharacteristically tendentious way. The fact is that accession could not go ahead until it had been agreed by the European Parliament. Until then there was no proposal, in the full sense, to be debated. That is all I meant.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that the Leader of the House will accept my next remark in the spirit in which it is meant, but I must remind him that the proposal was certainly on the cards, because the Prime Minister came back and told us all about it some weeks ago, and there has been much discussion about the content of his statement.
I now hasten on. We are talking about the balance between the Executive and the House. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the document HC 588, which is the 1977–78 report of the Select Committee on Procedure —the Committee that is now chaired by the right hon. Member for Honiton. Referring to Lord Glenamara, who was then the Leader of the House, the report said:
The essence of the problem, as Lord Glenamara himself recognised, is that the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day to day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy.
If that was true in 1977, it is at least as true now.
That was a unanimous report, backed by the following hon. Members:
Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Michael English, Mr. John Grant, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir David Renton, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Nigel Spearing and Sir Thomas Williams".
We are suffering at least as much now. In the context of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which we are not discussing now, I suggest that, if the recommendation for the Committee is accepted, that uneven weighting will become far worse, for one simple reason. That was the thesis of my letter, and I do not believe that any hon. Member could disagree with it. Although statutory and primary law is available for contention in the courts, and involves the total balance between advantage and privilege


with which Acts of Parliament are always concerned, regulations are administrative law. They are designed to allow officials to take executive action to carry out in detail the will of the House.
In the example that the hon. Member for South Hams used, if the regulation says the Minister "shall" or "may" specify something concerning a certain number of inches, or a certain number of little men running up and down stairs, that is it. That is quite a different matter. To use secondary legislation to change primary legislation wholesale would be in breach of the constitution.
The Chairman of the Committee pointed out that, if law is made, it should be unmade in exactly the same way; otherwise, it would be devalued. The hon. Member for South Hams may not have heard of amending orders, annulment orders, or orders made for a certain period of time after which they expire and have to be renewed. That is how we could provide an opportunity, perhaps not in the Chamber but by consultative machinery, for overregulation to be dealt with if it occurs.

Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is now talking about the same sort of system as has been used to govern Northern Ireland for the past 25 years. Why should hon. Members who have supported that system being applied to Northern Ireland for 25 years not welcome its extension to the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has illustrated what may be in store for us.

Mr. Ross: Exactly.

Mr. Spearing: I do not think that anybody could question that.
In respect of that type of regulation, I shall conclude—

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Spearing: No. Time is limited.

Mr. Steen: I shall be very quick.

Mr. Spearing: Go on.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although statutory instruments tend to get passed in three minutes in Committee, the procedure likely to result from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will take much longer to unwind or repeal them? I should like to hear what he thinks about that.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right, but for the wrong reason. We have to put in place something that, however skilfully it may be constructed, will be an enormously complicated procedure. That is because regulations are being used for the wrong purpose. It would be much easier to amend an Act, as does the middle part of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which we shall discuss tomorrow.
I finish by suggesting an alternative procedure to deal with what, while it may not be described as the West Lothian question, could be described as the South Hams question. Over-regulation and unnecessary regulation have to be dealt with. Why not have an annual deregulation Bill? We have one this year, and there are bits in it about public vehicles and all sorts of other things; it affects regulations about this, that and the other. Such a Bill could even be

amended, if the House wished. Indeed, a spectacular amendment was made yesterday to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. So there would be an opportunity for the hon. Member for South Hams, or anybody else, to say that something was wrong. But the law should be changed in the same way as it was made.
There may be a danger in doing that, because if we use the same procedure as we use for Standing Committees on Bills, such a Committee, like the Committee on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, would have to deal with a vast range of all sorts of different issues. Its membership could not be hand-picked, so there could be difficulties. If such a Bill were to be introduced every year, therefore, there ought to be outside consultation before its introduction. That arrangement could be part of some overriding Act. I have attempted to suggest how that could be done with my amendment No. 90—which, of course, I cannot talk about now, because that would be out of order, but which hon. Members can read on the amendment paper.
Instead of going to a Standing Committee, why should not the annual deregulation Bill be dealt with separately? The Army Bill is dealt with separately, and so is the Finance Bill. Initially it would go to a Public Bill Committee—the sort of Committee that I think we should have, and which was advocated by the Procedure Committee in 1977. There would be a Select Committee procedure for a period—perhaps the membership could change with the subject—and then a normal Standing Committee, after which the Bill would return to the Floor of the House.
I suggest that that would be using the House in the proper way. There would be pre-legislative consultation, scrutiny and questioning of Ministers in the House where necessary. That might not be necessary; let us hope that it would not. I hope that that would deal with the problems that concern the hon. Member for South Hams. It would also help the Government, and would avoid the great complications, and the enormous manpower and extra work, that the Procedure Committee's recommendations could entail.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution. I start by paying tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee. I was lucky enough, if that is the phrase, to be summoned, and I was received with courtesy and listened to attentively for a happy 15 or 20 minutes. That was a worthwhile exercise. The Committee's work has been most valuable, and the House should be grateful to its members.
The Leader of the House has something to answer for in that he has brought us to this position. Here we are in the middle of the week having to insinuate the debate in between two days of a Report stage. We are in the middle of the consideration of the Bill. The Government should have seen that problem coming when they conceived the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in the first place. It is wrong to have to hold such a debate, and to force the Procedure Committee to make such a hurried report—although it was executed with dispatch, with proper expedition and with expertise.
We should not be having this debate in the middle of a two-day Report stage. The question should have been resolved clear of the final stages of the Bill, so that the


House could have had more time to contemplate some of the profound changes that will result from the legislation. I do not think that it is right that this important debate about the work of the Procedure Committee should be sandwiched in the middle of the debate on Report.
The Leader of the House must bear in mind the wider worries that some Members on both sides of the House have, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has adverted, in relation to regulations. There is a widespread view that the House is suffering from overload at every level and in every direction. I do not think that the Government are doing enough about that. We have mentioned the Jopling report and the distinguished work that the Procedure Committee has done in the past. It has made plenty of recommendations. There is a growing sense, especially among my generation, if I can put it that way—although I am older than I look—that the House is overloaded. At some time or another, someone will have to grasp that nettle.
I am in favour of the fast-track procedure, subject to safeguards, but I do not think that it is enough. I should not want the Leader of the House to go away thinking that, if he obtains the agreement of the House to the procedure, that is the end of the matter, because it is not. Europe will produce more important legislation, and anxieties will grow in Scotland and in Wales that inadequate time is available on the Floor of the House of Commons. I am not by any means suggesting that that leads one to a conclusion about separation. There are all sorts of other ways, in a federal context, in which those problems could be tackled. There is a long agenda, which we ignore at our peril and which is not tackled by the narrower but nevertheless significant changes that are proposed in the Bill.
While I have the attention of the Leader of the House, I want to tell him that the measures that we are considering should only be temporary. If we accept the fact that in the past there has been over-regulation and over-legislation, presumably the penny has now dropped: the day has dawned; we all now see the error of our ways; and after the forthcoming Queen's Speech, all those problems will be solved. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman lacks the bottle to say to Departments in future, "Up with these excessive attempts at legislation we will not put in future," he will fail the House and will not be doing his duty properly. He must take that seriously, and the measures should be temporary.
I am worried that the work that the Procedure Committee has done, in rightly and thoroughly scrutinising the problem that it was set, will turn into a procedure that will be built into the bricks of this place and that, in future, we shall have primary legislation that will need to be stripped out by the fast-track procedure in due course. If the House gets into that mind-set, it will fail in its duty. The procedures should be used, appropriately and thoroughly, for the next few years, until we return to the situation in which we want to be, which is that we only introduce legislation in this place when it is essential.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly argued that rights, checks and balances must all be borne in mind. I must say in parenthesis that I am attracted by the solution that he proposed, which would provide a viable alternative, and I wonder whether the Government have given that suggestion the serious consideration that I believe that it deserves.
There are some anxieties about the context in which the debate is taking place and I hope that the Leader of the House will realise that he has a duty to go away and think longer and harder about some of the longer-term issues that stand behind the proposals that we are considering.
Putting all that to one side, speaking for myself, I am willing to contemplate a fast-track procedure and I think that the Committee was right to propose it. I would add the qualification that it is essential, for the procedure to operate safely, that the House has ultimate control of the way in which the legislation and the new provisions are executed.
I say to the Leader of the House that I believe that an important factor in that—it may be a minor point—is that the Government should seriously consider offering the chairmanship of the Committee to an Opposition party. It is a special Committee and we must mark it out as a special Committee. The Leader of the House gave me an understandable response to my intervention, that the usual channels will dispose of questions such as that. From my perspective as someone who plays a minor part in the usual channels, I am not convinced that that will not be lost in the normal carve-up of perfectly ordinary and acceptable party interests. It will simply be lost.
I believe that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is right in saying that the Committee should be set slightly apart from Select Committees. One of the ways that we can slightly set it apart—it is done in terms of the Public Accounts Committee and it works perfectly well in that regard—is to select and nominate a chairman from the Opposition ranks.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman said that he was hoping that the Chairman would come from a minority party, or rather from an Opposition party. How many minority party Members does he think will be on that Committee?

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that there will be at least one; perhaps two. It depends on the size of the Committee.
We can have an argument about the rights and the balances and the opportunities that minority parties have —and as shop steward for the minority parties on the Committee of Selection I try to do my best, within the confines of the contest between the two major parties, to protect our interests; however, although I accept what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, my argument is slightly different. By virtue of our allowing the chairmanship to fall into the hands of the Opposition parties, the Committee will be given a certain distinction. Such a move would set the Committee apart and give the House added protection in the sense that the Committee would not then be driven simply by the perceptions, needs and desires of the Executive, which is a significant worry.
If the Government are not willing to do that, and if they are not willing to put proper safeguards into the fast-track procedure, which gives the House some sense that it has ultimate control, they will fail in what they are setting out to do. That would be a retrograde step.
I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the longer-term issues as well as some of the shorter-term ones. In particular, I hope that he will give some added thought to the question of offering the chairmanship to a party that is outwith the party of government, because if those Committees are to be enshrined for all time, Governments will come and Governments will go. I know the Leader of the House well enough to trust him. I do not


subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the procedure will be taken over and used in some nefarious way for Government political purposes. I do not believe that in the current context, but we cannot say that that will not change in future Parliaments, with different incumbents in the office that he holds. He must tackle those genuine anxieties to assure the House that that is being done properly.

Mr. George Galloway: That was a terribly disappointing close to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I think that he might have been better informed about the true nature of the measures and the procedural infrastructure that is being instituted this evening to bring the measures into effect. If the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had been here last night or this evening, he would have been better informed. He at least was able to see the beast face to face.
Although the Government have fielded some jolly decent coves this evening, and have shown us a decent face —although, as one paragraph made clear, the report is not as nice as the person who introduced it looks—the measures are an affront to the constitution. They are an abuse of democracy. That is something that has not been fully reflected during a debate in which we have ranged very widely: we have had the latest battle in the hundred years war over Britain's membership of the European Union; the Jopling report; and all sorts of other essentially extraneous issues.
What we are talking about is the procedural infrastructure to give the Government what have been described as Henry VIII powers, so draconian are those powers in relation to Parliament and to the further accretion of control on the part of an Executive who have done more than enough over the past 15 years to lead us to conclude that their purpose is ignoble. The Government's accretion of executive powers is an ignoble crusade, however nice the gentlemen sent here to argue for it may have been.
I said in the Committee that considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill that the Government were ill advised to choose Henry VIII as a role model at this parlous time in the Conservative party's political history. Henry VIII was a mass murderer; he was a serial adulterer, leaving what I think are known as love children all over the country; he disposed of parliamentary and any other opposition in the most brutal and undemocratic fashion. He even tucked his trousers into his socks. They were not actually trousers—more a kind of frock. But perhaps I had better not go further down that line.
All in all, Henry VIII was a very unsavoury character in British history. It is inappropriate for any Government in a modern democracy to be bent on taking powers so dictatorial that they have now become known universally as Henry VIII powers. From some mail received today I see that the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists is to bring Henry VIII back to life with a personal appearance, including axes and stocks, on Westminster bridge at 11.15 tomorrow. No doubt the country's media will be there in force.
We are talking about giving a discredited Executive, a discredited Cabinet, a discredited Government, draconian

powers to dispose of primary legislation that the House, in its proper way, has passed in years gone by. This is no laughing matter. A reading of the speeches of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and of other Conservative Members during the Second Reading debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill makes it clear that attitudes to the constitutional aspects of this matter are shared by Members on both sides of the House and will be shared in another place. I, for one, am not at all sure that the other place will tamely roll over to the constitutional implications.
I come now to the very emollient and gentlemanly discourse that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee gave at the beginning of the debate. In the few minutes available to me I shall deal with one or two aspects of it. The idea that we can be satisfied with the proposals that the Procedure Committee has come up with, especially with regard to the issue of the chairmanship, simply will not wash.
The very decent Leader of the House made it clear by implication that an Opposition Member will not chair the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), in an intervention today and repeatedly in Committee, elicited, by implication, the answer that there will be a Chairman's sift. There is to be a Conservative placeman in the Chair, and that Chairman will have power to sift. There will be a majority of Government placemen, as is clear from responses to interventions during this debate. There will therefore be no real protection whatever.
I am very sure that the usual procedures, the Government's powers of patronage, fear of the Whips and the inducement of promotion and of other favours will be such that the Minister bringing forward a deregulation proposal will manage, no doubt with 40 or 60 days' huffing and puffing but ultimately with very little difficulty, to get it through by partisan vote. After that, we shall have only a 90–minute debate at the end of the evening, when the press have gone home and the nation sleeps. Primary legislation will be swept away as the Whips whip the majority through the Lobbies.
This is a coarsening, cheapening and brutalising of the procedures of the House of Commons that sits well with the coarsening, cheapening and brutalising project that the deregulation legislation itself represents. The legislation chips away yet more of the edifice of civilised British society. This is the necessary concurrent procedural infrastructure. I am very disappointed at the tame response of the Liberal party, as enunciated by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, whom I admire very much and with whom I very rarely disagree. It will not be the tame response of the Labour party. We reject these proposals, as we reject the Bill.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman, in the course of his hyperbolic defence of democracy, that the reason for others taking a different view is that, unlike him, they think that deregulation is a good idea?

Mr. Galloway: If it is a good idea, why cannot it be brought to the Floor of the House with debate on an annual deregulation Bill? If it is such a good idea, it would no doubt stand the test of parliamentary democracy and would be approved by a majority of the House after due debate. If it is such a good idea, let the Government put it to the test. The truth is that it is a rotten idea, at least in so far as


it exists in the minds of Ministers, who are engaging in the exercise at the behest of vested interests, many of whom have stuffed the Conservative party's coffers with gold in exchange for deregulation measures.
It is because it is such a rotten idea that the Government want to push these things through in a 90–minute debate, after normal parliamentary business and while the nation sleeps. The purpose is to dispose of the business as quickly and in as much shadow as possible. This is to be done precisely because it is a rotten idea conceived by the rotten lot opposite.
There is undoubtedly legislation that should, and could easily in a bipartisan way, be dispensed with. We could take a couple of hours upstairs night after night and, with the statute book in front of us, agree among ourselves that this or that piece of legislation is no longer necessary. However, we know that this project, this bonfire—how inappropriate that term may turn out to be in the context of the deregulation of fire protection with which we dealt last night—of civilised society in Britain is something that the Government would prefer to hold very quickly and quietly and, if possible, when no one is looking.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief because I know that several of my colleagues wish to contribute to the debate.
It is a privilege to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for what he said was essentially correct. It is true that the entire exercise that we are debating is ideologically driven. It is true also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, that if the Government wanted to clear away the legislative undergrowth they could do so annually in a deregulation Bill. They could repeal redundant legislation by that means.
I smiled wryly to myself when the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made his ignorant contribution. We know from the Minister and his ministerial colleagues —this was made clear in Committee—that 71 per cent. of the regulations that the Government want to sweep away were introduced since 1979. They are Conservative, not Labour, regulations. A full fifth of the regulations have been introduced since November 1990, when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) moved into No. 10. The idea that satanic socialists from previous Administrations are responsible for all the regulations is nonsense.
Who will chair the Deregulation Committee? It should be a member of one of the Opposition parties. The Chairman will have the power to sift. He will decide what goes to the full Committee. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government
do not intend to introduce many draft orders initially. We shall begin with a small number, depending on how many proposals the new Committee wished to inquire into in greater detail. That aspect may not have been appreciated. We anticipate that a Chairman's sift would identify those which the Committee wished to spend time on, or call witnesses to, or have further papers on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 February 1994; c. 231.]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, who is not in his place, gave evidence to the Procedure Committee. He said:
For example, if a procedure were adopted that did entail a sift, a chairman's sift, of the kind that exists under some other

arrangements, or perhaps a sift by a sub-committee to decide which one seemed not to require a great deal of attention by the proposed new committee and others which really did require some investigation, then there would be the possibility, for example, that the Government would put forward a number which appeared, on the face of it, unlikely to be felt by the committee to require a major investigation.
So the role of the Chairman and the Chairman's sift is crucial.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prentice: I shall give way in a moment.
I move on to the evidence that was given to the Procedure Committee by no less a person than the Clerk of the House, Sir Clifford Boulton. He was asked specifically about the proprieties of the Chairman's sift by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). She wanted to know whether it was established procedure in the House for a Chairman to act on a Committee's authority without the Committee actually meeting. Sir Clifford said:
it is … not the practice of our Committees to give devolved powers to the Chairman and then ask for some kind of restrospective approval of action he had taken, if that was going to go to the extent of certifying to the Leader of the House that the Committee would not be bothering with certain proposals or something like that.
Later, he said:
our Committees do not have power to sub-delegate authority to the Chairman.

Sir Peter Emery: May I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that there was no intention in any aspect of the recommendation in the Procedure Committee's report that anything but every regulation should go to the complete Committee for its consideration? That is absolute. It is most important that the hon. Gentleman should realise that that was the Committee's judgment.

Mr. Prentice: I do not know for the life of me how it will work in practice. The whole thing has not been thought through.

Sir Peter Emery: It has.

Mr. Prentice: It has not been thought through. One of the problems was that the Standing Committee which was considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill was running in parallel with the Select Committee on Procedure and the latter could not realistically be expected to know what was being discussed and being debated in the Standing Committee. I forget the number of occasions on which we were speculating on what would be the response of the Procedure Committee. We did not know because the Procedure Committee had not got round to dealing with the matters with which we were wrestling in the Standing Committee.
I say to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that a fundamental contradiction exists. If there are a large number of deregulation orders and lots of legislative undergrowth needs to be cut and hacked down, there has to be a Chairman's sift. If there are not many deregulation orders, why bother in the first place? The whole thing is ideologically driven.
I shall say bluntly what, perhaps, my hon. Friends would not say. I do not think that the Procedure Committee report measures up. It falls far short of what we are entitled to expect from such a senior Committee of the House. The genesis of the proposal was in the minds of Conservative Members who could not conceive of Britain ever electing


anything other than a Conservative Government. It was Conservatism in perpetuity. After the local elections and after what happens next month, Conservative Members ought to start considering—not chortling—that the boot may be on the other foot.

Sir Peter Emery: I was chortling at the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have considered that.

Mr. Prentice: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has considered that. It is a problem that we are considering tomorrow in the final stages of a Bill that will dramatically alter the constitutional landscape of the country. The report that we are discussing does not measure up to that.

Dr. Tony Wright: We are, in a sense, discussing clause 4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill tonight. Clause 4 has a certain history in the annals of my party and I suspect that the present clause 4 will acquire a certain historical significance in the annals of the Conservative party. Perhaps it was because Conservative Members had been in power too long that they thought that the time had come when they could start to legislate by order. They began to get worried, because people—some in the other place, some constitutional lawyers outside and, indeed, some citizens—said that they did not think that they should proceed like that, and, if they did, there would be certain consequences.
So Conservative Members thought to themselves, "Well, we had better introduce a certain parliamentary device to make it all right and to legitimise what we want to do." So clause 4 was introduced. Clause 4 refers to the role of Parliament in the order-making process. There will be a device for parliamentary consideration and it is, of course, that device, that clause 4 mechanism, that we are being asked to consider. I believe that that mechanism will acquire a significance when the current period is considered, as our own clause 4 has over the years.
I want to consider the Procedure Committee report at face value. I shall not say what the report should have contained or, as some of my hon. Friends have said, how it is inadequate generally and that its genesis has problems. I shall take it as it comes because, remember, it is the device that we are being offered to make the process of the Government doing what they wish all right.
In its own terms, the Committee tried to do that. Indeed, it came up with what it called five safeguards, which, if any hon. Member would care to consider them, are in paragraph 102. Those safeguards are the bottom line that the Committee offers the House as the device to make the process all right. I will not read out all five of those safeguards as they are in the report.
However, it is most revealing that two of those extremely important safeguards have been rejected by the Government. They are:
the Deregulation Committee should have the power to summon Ministers to give evidence.
and:
a Deregulation Committee report that the order-making power should not be used for a specific deregulation proposal would prevent a final deregulation order being laid".
The Government rejected that and said that they would prefer to use the process in relation to draft orders rather than proposals. [Interruption.] The Chairman of the

Procedure Committee wants to know whether that is correct. He seems to be asking the Leader of the House whether that is correct.

Sir Peter Emery: I wanted to know whether the Government's rejection of that was correct. I do not believe that the Government's rejection has ever been suggested.

Dr. Wright: That is very interesting. Time is short, but I simply advise the right hon. Gentleman to consider the Government's reply contained in paragraphs 15 to 18, which state precisely what I have just described.
The Procedure Committee report refers to the importance that the Committee attaches to the rejection power. Paragraph 64 states:
We recommend that, if the Deregulation Committee reports that the order-making power should not be used in respect of a specific deregulation proposal, no deregulation order should be laid before the House in respect of that proposal.
That could not be clearer. It is a bottom-line demand in relation to the safeguards that are being suggested, but the Government have rejected that bottom-line demand.
We have five safeguards, but two of them have been rejected. In addition, the Procedure Committee's report states that the existing Government suggestions do not go far enough and paragraph 104 states very clearly:
We recommend that acceptance of these recommendations should be signified by the Government before the third reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in this House.
There we have it.
There is a clear declaration that the order-making machinery is acceptable to the Procedure Committee only if those five safeguards are met and the acceptance is given before the Third Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. However, two of the five safeguards have been rejected and we are to have Third Reading tomorrow. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee may be happy with that. Indeed, the House may be happy with that. However, I warn against the consequences of having embarked on a road of providing protections, but having two of those fundamental protections rejected, and then still pressing on.
I have raised important points and I want briefly to add a further point. During consideration of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill we offered the Government several tests of good faith. One test asked whether the Government were sure that nothing controversial would be introduced under the order-making power. We were not given that assurance in Committee. The Leader of the House seemed to give that assurance tonight, but there is great uncertainty about that point.
The Government do not know whether the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is a little Bill or a big Bill. If it is a big Bill, the order-making power is not appropriate. If it is a little Bill, how on earth can it deliver the promise of deregulation? That is the contradiction which is more exposed the more we talk about it. The Government would not respond to the tests of good faith that we put to them.
When we asked that certain key areas of protection, such as health and safety and employment protection, be written into the Bill so that they could not be included in the order-making powers, the Government refused to do so. They failed that test of good faith.
We asked the Government to accept in full the Procedure Committee's report. We specifically asked the Government to accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee if it said that it was not appropriate


to use the order-making power for a particular proposal. That was one of the Committee's five recommendations, but the Government rejected it. All tests of good faith, such as the suggestion about an annual renewal of the Bill, were rejected. Yet we are being asked by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to say that it is all right and that we can proceed nevertheless.
I am tempted to conclude my remarks here, but I want to go a little further. I cannot really join in the paeans that some of my hon. Friends have delivered to the normal legislative process in the House. I wish that there were enough time for me to share all the information that I have with the House. However, I will share some and my hon. Friends can tell me when to stop.
I have just emerged from the Committee which considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—which I suppose in one sense is an untypical Bill, but in another sense is very typical. It is the first big Bill that I have considered in Committee in this place. I hear regular descriptions in the House—I have heard them today—of the glories of the legislative process. Frankly, it is an illusion; it is self-delusion. It is a collective delusion of the Parliament. We have been rumbled outside, but in here I presume that we still believe this sort of thing.
I have made a quick analysis of exactly what happened with the deregulation Bill in Committee. The Committee sat from 15 February until 28 April. We sat for 35 sessions and for 88 hours. About 200 amendments were moved. Shall I give the House the terrible details? The 100 amendments moved by the Government went through and two of ours went through. One of those was passed because the Whip on the other side was asleep—I hope that it will not do irreparable damage to his political advancement. I am giving the House only the barest details.
I am afraid that this is the reality of the legislative process in the House. It is a case of Members not being present, Members conducting business in the corridors, being summoned by bells and doing their correspondence in Committee. The textbooks call it "scrutiny". It is an hilarious situation, and the hilarity was compounded when the Bill came back to the House last night.
We spent many hours in Committee talking about markets. We explained to the Government that we thought that we needed new liberalising legislation to clear away some of the antique provisions and to regulate where unregulated markets were causing trouble. We were assured that this was not an issue at all and that the thing to do was simply abolish charter market rights. Of course, all hon. Members from the Government party voted happily for that provision when the bell rang and they were required to do so.
After that process was completed, the Minister came into the House last night and told us that what we had said all along was right and that it would be sensible to bring in some new provisions. But this did not happen as a result of scrutiny in the House or because of the legislative process; it happened because the Opposition could not get away with it. That is the only way that changes are made. To make it even worse, there was a new provision about racing which had never been discussed in Committee and which had had no scrutiny at all. The Minister said that he was sorry that the matter had not been not consulted upon, but it was introduced and passed. That is the reality of the legislative process.

Mr. Bennett: I accept the cynical view which my hon. Friend is putting forward, but I would suggest that, on markets, perhaps spending those 80 hours in Committee did something useful. While the Committee was consuming time, an awful lot of people were lobbying outside. Therefore, while the scrutiny in the House may not have been very effective, the scrutiny in the country perhaps was.

Dr. Wright: There is a little truth in what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that the big truth still lies with my description of the process.
I have a certain ambivalence about the whole matter. In some ways, I find the new scrutiny machinery quite interesting. I do not like it in so far as it allows Ministers to legislate by order, but in so far as it begins to address some of the problems with the normal legislative process in the House, I begin to get interested.

Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for 10 or 15 years, those who understand what he has been saying have made strong efforts to introduce a public Bill procedure where, prior to the legislative procedure of amendments, Ministers appear as witnesses in a Select Committee format to justify their Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that that would improve things enormously?

Dr. Wright: I agree very much. I feel myself being lured towards territory which I would like to enter, but I must prevent myself from doing that.
There is a reform agenda, and there is no difficulty in knowing what we ought to do. The Hansard Society produced the definitive reform agenda for the legislative process two years ago. The weight of evidence which came in from every part of society to that learned commission showed that there was massive and profound dissatisfaction with the way in which this place operates.
The society produced an agenda for reform which incorporated some of the ideas which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned, and it included First Reading Committees and a wider consultative process. Those ideas were available to us. The tragedy is that the House is not taking advantage of them.
I am not going back to the Jopling report, because I do not think that Jopling begins to go far enough. However, I shall quote from the Leader of House, who said on 2 July 1992 in reference to a debate on the Jopling report on the following Monday:
I hope that the debate … will pave the way for the House to reach some decisions very soon after it returns in the autumn." —[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 964.]
That was two years ago.
Of course, the problem is that the House seems incapable of reforming itself. Everyone outside knows that we have to do that, but the House seems incapable of understanding that.
A result of our not acting in this case is that we will allow an order-making power to be introduced. We will do it in a way which does not have adequate safeguards built in, and which does not incorporate the safeguards which were suggested by the Procedure Committee. More important, the House is refusing to reform its own procedures in a sensible and comprehensive way.
Worst of all is that the House does not care about this at all. Tomorrow night, hon. Members will troop through to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill which has


inadequate protections. The Government will have got the Bill, but the House will have fallen a further notch in the public's esteem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The deregulation Bill will not solve the problem of the number of regulations produced by the Government. I have some sympathy on that score with the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), although I think he missed the point about the sheer number of regulations that Ministers produce.
While the debate was going on I slipped out to the Board to collect my agenda for the Select and Joint Statutory Instrument Committees, just to see the number of instruments that we shall have to scrutinise next week. There are more than 30 of them, and the Government turn out that many week after week.
Last year the Government introduced more than 3,000 sets of new regulations and already this year the number has reached more than 1,000. Although the Government continually churn out regulations, Ministers do have a choice. They have tried to tell people that, because there is too much regulation, they intend to introduce a deregulation Bill—but the Bill is irrelevant to the problem. They have therefore tried to devise a new parliamentary procedure which I would suggest is wholly inadequate, as was the whole Procedure Committee report. It did not even consider the crucial issues.
Most regulations confer freedom on one group of people and restrictions on another group. I therefore can see no constitutional difference between a Bill that deregulates and a Bill that regulates.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to point out that many of the pieces of legislation that we scrutinise in Committee every week are defective, so we often have to look at them twice or three times before the Government get them right. Does he agree that if Departments did their work properly there would be a great deal less work for us?

Mr. Bennett: Certainly, but the whole problem with legislating by regulation is that it offers the temptation of not drafting regulations particularly well.
If the Government will go along with my proposal for new legislation, I will accept that the procedure they propose is reasonable. Let us imagine, in the next Parliament, that an Act is passed to allow, by regulation, for the safety and good governance of the United Kingdom, and to ensure the fair distribution of wealth and power. If we passed such an Act and then proceeded by regulation to achieve those ends, would the Conservatives think that that was a fair use of parliamentary procedure? I suspect not. But that has not stopped the Government arming themselves with sweeping powers to make legislation under the terms of our accession to the European Union. The sort of Act that I have described might provide my constituents with much speedier remedies for many of the problems that they face. Still, I think that it would be constitutionally unacceptable.
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee said that deregulation measures should be treated like primary

legislation. If so, I find it puzzling that the Committee failed to analyse the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that there be a deregulation Bill every year. I believe that such a Bill, scrutinised on the Floor of the House, would take up less time than the proposed new procedures might take.
We are told that there is a possibility of 20 or 30 deregulation orders. Assuming that many of them are controversial, that would mean an hour and a half for each, or 30 or 40 hours of parliamentary time. If there were a deregulation Bill, it would mean some six hours for a Second Reading. A small group of people would discuss the Bill, possibly for a long time, in Committee. There would then be 10 or 12 hours for Report and Third Reading. So in terms of efficient use of parliamentary time, an annual deregulation Bill would be a more efficient procedure than the hybrid mess that the Procedure Committee has come up with.
The main safeguard of a proper piece of legislation would be the amount of time that would be taken. I tend to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) that the time spent in Committee often is not very useful. But while that time is being consumed, debate often takes place outside. Groups of people lobby Ministers and come to see individual Members of Parliament. It is an important part of the parliamentary process that a certain amount of time is taken up. One of the problems with the deregulation measure is that the time will be compressed, and there is a possibility that things can be stampeded through.
On the proposals for markets, I find it remarkable that, although I spoke to one or two of my constituents when the Bill was first published, only in the past fortnight have a substantial number of letters begun to come in. We are talking about almost six months from its publishing to this stage. It is a sad fact, but in a democracy it takes a lot of time for the information to be disseminated to the country. One of the fatal flaws of the procedure suggested is that it does not allow sufficient time for trade associations, trade unions and lobbying groups to get the information out to their members, find out whether people are concerned and start the lobbying process.
We are told that, under the new procedure, 40 days will be allowed. If the Committee thinks that the matter is more extensive, it can be extended to 60 days.

Mr. Newton: I am beginning to wonder increasingly whether some hon. Members who are making speeches —I say this with due deference to the hon. Gentleman—have read the proposals. No proposal goes to the Deregulation Committee unless it has already been the subject of consultation, and a report on the outcome of that consultation is made to the Committee with the proposal.

Mr. Bennett: Who does one consult? The proposal will not be widely publicised. I find it amazing that the Leader of the House does not understand what happens with the general public. There is a substantial time lag. One can write to a particular group if one knows that a regulation affects a trade union or an industry, but that is the limit of the consultation. Only when it gets into the public domain do people become concerned about it.
If the Government are saying that there will be a 12–month process from the point at which a Minister proposes the deregulation to the point at which the order goes through, they might as well go along with the


proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood to have a deregulation Bill each Parliament. The only excuse for the procedure is that it is supposed to be a short cut—a quicker way of doing it than having legislation. The Government cannot have it both ways. If there is to be all the consultation and safeguards that I think there should be, they might as well do it through primary legislation rather than their intended short-cut.

Mr. Newton: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings or be unduly tiresome, but I will make the point that while I happen to believe—as do my colleagues generally—in consultation wherever possible, although there is a requirement to consult here before introducing the proposal, there is no such requirement in respect of introducing primary legislation.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that there is no need for that requirement. I do not think that the proceedings of the House are particularly well reported, but almost always on Second Reading there is a reasonable debate in the House about the proposals, and from that point on people begin to become interested in the matter. I think that the consultation process is pretty effective; certainly most of the organisations that would be formally consulted, as required by the legislation, would spot anything in primary legislation.

Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under consultation procedures, the Department of Transport sent out a letter on 11 February asking various official bodies what they thought about getting rid of three schedules of the London Transport Act 1982, taking away the burden of running a lost property service? I do not think that many London Transport passengers know about that—and I did not until yesterday, despite having asked a question to which I received a misleading answer.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that it takes time. If the Government are anxious for the consultation process to be effective, they should look to primary legislation.
Primary legislation, moreover, gives the power to amend. Again, the markets provision, which was discussed last night, is a good illustration. The power to amend in detail allows the possibility of cross-party activity in the House and the defeat of the Government. Regulations, because of the way in which they are presented, give the Government much more power: there is a "take it or leave it" approach. I understand that some power to amend has been suggested, but that would be a result of the Committee's scrutiny rather than any opportunity to make amendments in the House.
Appointing 16 Committee members for the duration of a Parliament would be a disadvantage. Although they may follow the procedures, my experience in the House suggests that during such a long period at least some members of the party in government will be promoted—perhaps not very far, but at least to parliamentary private secretary—and will leave the Committee. There may be a turnover of members for various other reasons.
I think it is easier to persuade people to volunteer for involvement in primary legislation—which will give them the interest to follow through the issues involved—than to hope for good attendance in a Committee that meets week after week, often dealing with matters in which individual members have very little interest. I can say from my experience of the Select Committee on Statutory

Instruments that it is very difficult to maintain good attendance, although members are appointed for the duration of a Parliament.
I believe that there are major defects in the new procedure. If the Government cannot secure agreement, it will start at a disadvantage: people will be aiming to wreck it, rather than to make it work. I suggest that, even at this late stage, the Leader of the House should scrap the Procedure Committee's report and think again about finding some consensus—perhaps through the usual channels—if the Government are determined to bring about deregulation of Acts of Parliament by regulation. It would be far better to scrap the whole Bill and start again, perhaps promising an annual deregulation measure.

Mr. William Ross: I shall be brief. I read paragraph 16 of the Committee's report with interest. It consists of only one sentence, stating that the Committee has sought to ensure
that no Act of Parliament is repealed or amended under this new power without examination at least as thorough as if the change had been made by a Bill passing through the House.
As I said earlier in an intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), Northern Ireland has been governed by Order in Council for some 22 years. I was astonished and delighted this evening to hear so many Opposition Members condemn that procedure as applied to their constituents; I hope that they will now understand how those of us who represent the Province have felt for the past 22 years, 20 of which I have spent in the House.
Our experience is that the procedure suggested by the Government invariably results in legislation by civil servants rather than by Parliament. That is literally what happens with Northern Ireland legislation. I do not think that we should adopt such a procedure and I commend what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, South. A deregulation Bill each year might not be particularly satisfactory, but it would be a sight better than what the Government propose.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had an important debate on the Select Committee's report.
I should like to preface my remarks by referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who raised some important issues about the role of the House and ministerial accountability. It would do us all a great deal of good to explore that agenda because it is important for our democracy. It is extremely relevant to the debate that we have had this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood referred to the issue of the markets and the three clauses that were deleted last night from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I offer my hon. Friend one thought: if the procedures recommended in the report had been in place, I contend that the clauses dealing with markets would have been enacted speedily without the process of consultation and opposition that eventually occurred. The short-cut procedure would have led to bad legislation which would have been highly unpopular. It may be a warning to the Government that, if the procedures


that they are now trying to implement had been in place, they would have pushed through some unpopular measures on markets. That is one of the lessons that we need to draw.

Mr. Newton: That was in the Bill because the Government judged that it was not a proper use for the regulation-making power. It is a good illustration of where we think that it is appropriate to have new primary legislation.

Mr. Fatchett: With respect, there is no definition in the Bill or in the Procedure Committee's report of what is to come in the future, what is defined as important and what Bills or proposals can be used via the mechanism. The right hon. Gentleman's argument falls on its face because that sort of measure can come in the future.
The situation was well summed up by a telling intervention made by the Minister for Industry during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). The Minister said that many people want to get on with the deregulation initiative. That was an interesting perspective and it was embodied in all our debates in the Standing Committee. It was highly and wholly practical, with no reference to the underpinning constitutional issues. The Minister's primary concern was to deal with a deregulation initiative. That is an extremely dangerous approach to legislation and administration. The best approach takes account of our constitutional principles and tries to bring legislation within those principles.
We objected to the Bill on Second Reading, and we shall vote against it tomorrow on Third Reading, because it gives extensive powers to the Executive to repeal primary legislation. I shall quote a passage from the evidence of the Procedure Committee which has not been quoted by any of my hon. Friends. It sums up our key objection. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—

Mr. Bennett: Where is he?

Mr. Fatchett: I have received a note from the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has to fulfil another appointment.
The right hon. Member for Honiton asked the Clerk of Committees the following question:
do you know of any other instances where primary legislation has been altered, other than by a Statutory Instrument which arises from the primary legislation"?
The Clerk said:
No, I do not, Sir. I think this is recognised to be an innovation".
Is not the crucial point the fact that, under the Bill, the Government are taking the power to repeal and amend primary legislation? That is the key constitutional point.
It is a sad reflection on the House that no Conservative Member has felt this to be an important enough principle to come to the debate and to speak on these issues. Once that principle is accepted, others may use it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood said, Conservative Members believe that they will be the Government for ever and that they will implement the powers for ever. That is a foolish view in terms of their stewardship and of our political processes. It is also a dangerous and arrogant view which the House and the country should note.
Once the Government take that direction, one precedent will lead to many others. Do not Conservative Members

recognise the danger that others with different motives and objectives may wish to use the same procedures? They will not have the right to come back to the House and object. I should not want a Labour Government to use the executive powers proposed in the first four clauses of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, or anything like them, but the Government have introduced them, to which we object in principle.
The Government argue that safeguards are included in the procedures, which is swallowed by the Procedure Committee report. It relies on two phrases—"burden" and "necessary protection"—which arose time and again in Committee. The report and Ministers believe that those words have an objectivity that can be applied in each circumstance, which is nonsense. Those terms are highly political; they are charged with political controversy. A burden on business or a cost to an employer may be a safeguard for an employee or a consumer.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is not in his place, but I would have said this even if he were. Time and again, he has gone on about fire regulations and environmental health inspectors. Many consumers prefer to eat in a restaurant or hotel that is subject to environmental health standards. They regard that as a necessary price to pay in a civilised society. For some, including the hon. Member for South Hams, however, that price is seen as a burden.
Those terms are not charged with objectivity. They are at the heart of the political controversy. Last night, the debate on health and safety regulations at work and fire protection regulations divided the House. It is no use the Select Committee's report or Conservative Members trying to pretend that those words will enable to us make objective judgments; they will not.
The next argument of Ministers and in the Committee report is contradictory. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and by Ministers that the deregulation Bill is a modest Bill. That slightly contradicts the great fanfare of trumpets at the Conservative party conference that heralded this great deregulation initiative. Many great ideas at Conservative party conference suddenly become modest ideas; deregulation may be one.
Is there not a clear contradiction? If these are modest measures, and the deregulation Bill is a modest measure, why, in the words of the Clerk of the House, must we invent a new constitutional procedure to deal with this modest Bill? Is there not a better way of proceeding?
If the other side of the equation is correct and these are not modest but extensive measures, as the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs told the Conservative party conference last year, and if we believe the rhetoric of that conference, is that not a greater warning to the House? If the powers are extensive, should not we be saying that we shall not give the Government innovative powers to do things differently and undermine our constitution? The more extensive the powers, the greater should be the vigilance and scrutiny by the House of Commons. It saddens me that these powers are being taken by the Executive without one voice being raised on the Tory Benches, despite the fact that the Government's arguments about the nature of the Bill do not add up.
We have also been told that the Bill is an on-going process. That makes me extremely cautious because, if we regard it as an on-going process, we must remember that what is on today's deregulation agenda may not be on


tomorrow's. The present Ministers may disappear, and it is not impossible that the Conservative party could lurch even further to the right and be even more out of touch with public opinion. I could write the hypothesis of how that could happen. What would happen to these powers in such circumstances?
We tried repeatedly in Committee to control the scrutiny powers and to put a time limit on them, but our attempts failed. The Minister for Industry said that deregulation was an on-going, rolling process. He forgot the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that 71 per cent. of regulations have been introduced by this Government in the past 15 years. If deregulation is an on-going process, today's menu could change tomorrow and the new menu could be even more damaging for the interests that we should be protecting.
On the day the Bill was published, I said that the new powers contained in it would allow the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to be repealed. I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Employment, saying that I was scaremongering, that there was no truth in what I said and that it was not the Government's intention to operate in that way. Let us consider what could happen; I offer the House an hypothesis.
The Minister of State could tell the Deregulation Committee that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is a burden on employers and that, if we are to compete against the Government's new model of industrial economies—against Taiwan and South Korea, where he sees Britain's future—we have to get rid of that Act. He could say that, because we have good employers, we have the necessary protection, so the two categories—burden and necessary protection—are satisfied. The Scrutiny Committee, under the control of a Conservative majority, could agree that, as the two conditions of "necessary protection" and "burden" have been met, the Act should be repealed. What is there in the Committee's report or in the Bill to stop the 1974 Act being repealed in that way? There is absolutely nothing. That is the real danger of this Bill.
The problem is not what is happening now but what will happen if new powers are given to the Government and the Government remain in office. My colleagues said many times in Committee and again tonight that the Bill and this initiative have been driven by people who have made substantial contributions to the Conservative party. The list of such people has been published and it is self-evident. The agenda can be pushed even further. There are no safeguards in the report or in the Bill to protect employee or consumer interests. That is why we asked for time scales and have disagreed strongly with these powers, but the Government persist in their strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned an alternative way of doing things. I am sure that he read the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and he will have seen that, for the first four clauses, we advanced the same argument. My hon. Friends and I said that there were other ways of dealing with the deregulation proposals.
I say the same thing again now. If the proposals are modest, small in number and limited in scope, why do the Government not take up the Opposition's suggestion? It would in no sense stop the Government's deregulation initiative, but it would help them to say that each year a miscellaneous deregulation Bill would pass through the House. That would have the advantage of providing greater scrutiny, accountability and openness. Why do the

Government not take up that proposal? Why use the back door? Why do things through a scrutiny Committee, which will not have the powers to operate as we think it should?
I shall say a few final words about that Committee. In Standing Committee, I argued strongly that there should be a Chairman from among the Opposition parties. That is vital. But there is something else that we need to understand about this place. Flanked as I am by two Opposition Whips, I had better be careful what I say and how I phrase it, but I suspect that that crucial Committee defined in the report will consist of those whom the Whips know that they can manage—the ambitious, and those self-important enough to do the Whips' bidding. It will be a Government-controlled and Government-sponsored Committee. That will not help the reputation of the House, or answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood about the way in which the general public regard the House. We need a Committee with more independence. There will be little faith in it if it is fixed by the Government Whips, like everything else these days.
We voted against the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading because of the extensive powers being given away. I ask my hon. Friends not to vote against the Select Committee's report now, but to join me in the Lobby tomorrow night to vote against Third Reading of the deregulation Bill. That will not be because, unlike the Government, we believe in red tape—after all, we did not introduce 71 per cent. of the current regulations—but because we believe in the House, in the accountability of Ministers and in a rolling scrutiny by Members of Parliament. That is why we shall vote against the Bill, and that is why we reject the report, which does not deal with the principal issues that the House should have tackled.

Mr. Newton: I see that I have only three minutes in which to reply, so clearly I shall not be able to make any substantial comment on what has been said. I make no complaint about that, but I shall make one or two observations.
First, there has been some unfairness in attacks made on my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the Procedure Committee for the alleged inadequacies of the report—I do not share that view of it —by a party that declined to take a full part in its proceedings.
Secondly, there is something slightly peculiar in the implication of the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that proposals for orders that would allow the Patent Office to accept documents in forms other than paper—such as electronic filing—or exempt purchasers of small and statistically insignificant annual tonnages of corn from the requirement to make returns of information under the Corn Returns Act 1882 somehow constitute an astonishing attack on the whole of our parliamentary democracy—

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
Thirdly, with due deference to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who made an interesting speech, and to one or two others, I must say that the repeated emphasis on executive powers and the


Government's power to legislate by order implies something verging on contempt of the House. We are speaking about orders that have to be passed by the House, whereas people persistently speak as if we are talking about government by fiat. To return to the argument that I made to the hon. Member for Newham, South, it is perhaps curious that I, standing here, have greater confidence in the House than many of the Members who have spoken.
Most of what the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood wanted was closer to what we have in the proposals from the Procedure Committee than to an existing study of legislation. Most of the things that we are speaking about would have been passed on the nod in some schedule in a primary Bill. Here we have a Committee that will have to consider them. The hon. Gentleman should consider whether we are moving in the direction that he wants. I sense that he recognised that in many of his remarks. I leave the matter there.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS

Section 11 Funding

10 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz: I should like to present to the House on behalf of 2,000 of my constituents a petition which was presented to me recently by teachers and parents concerning the proposal of the Government to cut section 11 funding. Such funding, as the House knows, has provided a great deal of support for teachers, especially in our inner-city areas. The petition has been signed by teachers, parents and other people who are affected by the cuts. The petitioners request the Government to change their mind and to restore the section 11 funding, which is to be severely cut.
To lie upon the Table.

Goodwood House

Mr. Vaz: I also wish to present to the House a petition that is signed by 1,725 of my constituents, living predominantly in the areas of Evington, Thurncourt road and West Humberstone. The petition calls on the Secretary of State for Social Security to intervene in the proposals of Leicestershire county council to close Goodwood house, which is a home that provides services and residence for a number of elderly people in my constituency. The proposals are opposed by a large number of people, and the petitioners request that the Secretary of State intervenes so that provision may be allowed to continue and the residents of Goodwood house who have lived there for so many years may be allowed to continue to live there.
To lie upon the Table.

Alcohol Sales (European Single Market)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to mention an issue that is of great interest to many people involved in the drinks business throughout the country. It is the single market and the effect that it is having on our domestic drinks business, whether that be brewing, on-sales or off-sales. The industry employs about 1 million people, and even in the north-west it employs up to 150,000 people. I am an executive member of the all-party beer group and I take my duties extremely seriously.
There are three breweries in and around my constituency. The first is a small brewery in Moorhouses, Burnley. It employs 11 people on the brewing side and 30 people in its six pubs. It also supplies 150 other pubs in the area, employing about 750 people. Thwaites is a larger brewery, but still in family hands, based in Blackburn. It was established in 1807. It employs 332 people on the brewing side and provides employment for 2,000 other people in its public houses. Finally, there is Whitbreads in Samlesbury, which employs more than 500 people on the brewing side and a considerable number of other people in pubs and clubs that sell its beer. It was established in 1742. I have been to all three breweries and I am proud of their contribution to the local economy.
In addition to the breweries, some of the finest public houses in the country are in my constituency. The British pub is an institution that is not properly replicated anywhere in the world, but it is the envy of the world. Seventy per cent. of visitors to Britain prefer British pubs to their bars at home. The one aspect in which we could learn something from the continentals is our licensing hours, and I hope that we can tackle those at a future date.
Although we have some of the best pubs in the world, and certainly some of the best beers in the world, that is now seriously under threat.
I applaud the single market. It is a trading bloc without frontiers of 350 million people. We have 12 countries in the European Community. Soon the number will expand to 16, which means 16 different taxes and 16 different Governments—long may that remain the case.
We have a policy in this country of switching taxation away from direct to indirect taxes and I applaud that policy. That has led to the top rate of direct tax being reduced from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. and the bottom rate of tax being reduced from 33 per cent. to 20 per cent. at its lowest rate and 25 per cent. otherwise. We also have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community. Where we are almost top of the European Community league table is in the taxation that is imposed on alcohol, and I shall refer specifically to beer this evening.
Beer drinkers in this country account for 21 per cent. of the European Community's total beer consumption, but we pay 55 per cent. of the total Community beer duty, whereas our German neighbours account for 40 per cent. of total beer consumption in the Community but pay only 14 per cent. of the duty yield. The excise duty on a typical pint of British beer is 24.5p and the VAT is 20p, whereas in France drinkers pay, on average, less than 5p in excise duty per pint. That means that beer sellers in France start off with an advantage of 25p a pint over their British

counterparts when other factors are taken into account. Nor should we forget that French beer is stronger than British beer. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging people to drink more beer with a higher alcoholic content.
As we celebrate the coming down of the international barriers to trade, the chances are that we shall be toasting the frontierless trade with a glass of beer that originated abroad. Last year 330 million such pints of beer were drunk in this country. That is almost as much as is brewed in Norway.
I do not blame people for getting into their cars and vans and making the trek across the channel. It is a bit of fun, and, with the difference in the rates of tax on beer, there is a great incentive to do so. Nor is the ferry industry slow to encourage as many people as possible to use its services. Special offers appear in some national newspapers. The average customer will see a very quick return on his fare outlay.
The single market means that one can now bring back as much as one likes as long as it is for personal consumption. I fear for the health of the nation and I marvel at the physical capacity of some of my fellow countrymen to put away so much liquid. It cannot be doing them any good. I refer to those people who come back with their cars heavily laden with beer and tell Customs officials that it is all for their own consumption. What are the officials supposed to do with such evidence?
The trade is getting so big that British-owned store chains such as Sainsbury and Tesco are opening up across the channel, and others will soon follow. I am sure that Mr. Sainsbury will be relieved to learn that in my retail store in Swansea I do not intend to follow suit.
There are worrying signs on the horizon. I shall mention just one or two of them. On the question of smuggling, I refer the House to early-day motion 165, which has been signed by 125 hon. Members. Organised crime and the Arthur Daleys of this world have a nice little earner in the sale of massive quantities of their contraband. So prolific is the practice that it has reached the heights of Reg Holdsworth's minimarket in "Coronation Street".
The Minister will be alarmed, as I was, to learn that Britain's favourite landlady, Bet Lynch of the Rover's Return, could see her livelihood hit thanks to her boy friend's frequent illegal imports of cheap lager, which he brings back in his empty lorry on the return leg of his visits abroad. He sells the lager to Reg, who then sells it to his customers. Reg is a decent sort of bloke and probably thinks that he is not doing any wrong. Bet Lynch would probably think otherwise, as would Newton and Ridley, the brewery landlords of the Rover's Return.
However, I fear that in this practice Reg is not alone. A local brewery told me that the landlords of three of its pubs have been approached by people offering to sell them vanloads of imported beer. Someone even offered to supply the brewery's managing director with beer in this way.
I know that Customs and Excise has a dedicated task force visiting stores, pubs and car boot sales. Its members use the intelligence that they have built up from various sources, but it is not enough. Nor are there enough of these people. There must be more stops and searches. If they are successful in finding illegal supplies, these must be confiscated and prosecutions must take place. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell the House how many prosecutions there have been to date and how many goods have been confiscated.
Potentially more worrying than smuggling is a practice called distance selling and buying. The practice may start and it has not been tested in the courts. It would involve someone using a middle man or agent to place an order and to receive imports of beer from France into the United Kingdom without accompanying the goods. If we think that smuggling has proved to be damaging to the trade as it stands, distance selling will lead to the decimation of the brewing industry.
When the single market was first introduced, swift action was taken by the Danish Government because they could see that there would be a problem. As a result, beer duty decreased by 47 per cent. That approach has worked. The Danes were fearful of the cross-border trading that would take place.
The specific problem to which I am drawing attention has been recognised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he mentioned it in his November Budget. Only 40 per cent. of travellers take the opportunity to buy beer on their trips abroad, so there is scope for an even greater increase in the practice. That will be especially so when the channel tunnel comes into full operation and doubles the capacity for cross-channel travel from 28 million to 56 million passengers a year.
We are exporting our taxes and our jobs. The problem will be eradicated only by decreasing the differential between taxation systems. I would not dream of telling the French what to do with their domestic taxes, and I would be especially offended if the French told me what we should be doing with our taxes. We must recognise, however, that a problem exists and that there is a stark difference between our taxes on beer and their taxes.
I cheered with everybody else when Her Majesty the Queen travelled through the channel tunnel for the first time. I look forward to travelling through the tunnel myself. A new market will be created and many more people will be able to make the journey. As Her Majesty looks forward to the marriage of her youngest son to Sophie Rhys-Jones, I trust that she will not be toasting their future happiness with a glass of smuggled champagne, but all too many will.
The need is pressing for the Government to introduce tighter controls and tougher penalties on smugglers who abuse the single market. It is time to look again at the present tax regime in the United Kingdom, which is preventing the drinks industry from taking full advantage of the potential benefits. Having reassessed the tax regime, we would be able to preserve the drinks industry, which has grown up over centuries. It has contributed to our benefit and now is the time for us to support it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his luck in securing the Adjournment debate this evening. I thank him for allowing me to take a minute or so of the debate.
Secondly, I declare my interest. I am the parliamentary adviser to the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association. In that role I meet many brewers, and I know that they are extremely concerned about the situation that my hon. Friend has outlined. It is not only the brewers in the south-east of England who are concerned about the effect

of the importation of beer. The concern is shared by brewers throughout the country. We are finding imported beer on which no duty has been paid in Yorkshire and the north-east of England generally. It is a serious problem.
It is not only the brewers who are worried. CAMRA —the Campaign for Real Ale—which is certainly not in bed with the brewers, shares their concern. I shall quote what it states in a brief that it sent to hon. Members in July 1993. The brief reads:
The massive differential between Britain and the Continent will lead in the long term to a smaller UK brewing industry, pub closures and revenue loss as beer is increasingly brewed and bought abroad.
I do not believe that CAMRA is being alarmist when it says that. There is a serious risk of the brewing industry being harmed as a result of the situation as outlined by my hon. Friend. He was quite right to talk of the threat to jobs. The problem, of course, is that UK beer duty is more than six times that in France. The result is that the UK tax regime perpetuates unfair competition in the European single market.
The solution should be that the Government follow a strategy of progressive reduction in UK beer duty to bring about fair competition. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor for freezing beer duty as he did in the Budget. I do not believe that he did it simply because he is fond of the odd pint, but because he recognised the difficulties facing the brewing industry. The Danes, as my hon. Friend pointed out, had a similar problem, which they faced by reducing beer duty and it solved the problem. There may be other solutions, and if my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has something else in mind, perhaps he can spell it out tonight. However, it seems that doing nothing is not an option.

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I am glad of the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to give the House an update on how we see the position of cross-border shopping and the smuggling of alcohol. I want to talk briefly on three aspects: first, the scale and the effects of it all; secondly, the possibility, which my hon. Friend mentioned, of distance selling and unaccompanied goods; thirdly, the progress of customs in dealing with smuggling.
There have been a series of attempts to estimate the scale of cross-border shopping and the smuggling of excisable goods since the single market opened in the past year. Clearly, cross-border shopping is inherently easier to estimate, because people will tell us what they are doing, whereas smugglers, of course, conceal it when they can. Obviously, cross-border shopping for personal consumption is a legal activity; indeed, it is one of the benefits to consumers of the coming of the single market. Smuggling goods for resale is illegal, however, as is selling alcohol or tobacco here, which has evaded United Kingdom duty.
Often the estimates of the scale of such practices are expressed by me and by others in terms of duty lost. That is a convenient way in which to measure the volume of alcohol involved, but nobody supposes that the duty lost is the only fiscal effect of these phenomena. Clearly, there will be directly measurable effects on value added tax and indirect effects on corporation tax and income tax, although those are more difficult to estimate.
We consider all the available evidence for cross-border shopping and smuggling. Surveys have been done by the


brewers—understandably campaigning against such behaviour—and also by Customs and Excise. They have come to different results, partly because they have been expressing slightly different things. There was a certain amount of cross-border shopping and smuggling before the single market opened; our primary interest is in the increase of those activities since.
Surveys are not the only way in which to try to establish the facts. One of the things that I look at carefully every month is the returns of duty received. In 1993, after a year of the single market, our receipts from duty were up in every category. Duty receipts from spirits produced in 1993 rose from £1,698 million to £1,739 million. The volume of production was up by about 1.9 per cent. Receipts from beer produced rose from £2,394 million to £2,407 million. There was a volume fall of about 3 per cent., continuing the trend of recent years.
Wine receipts rose strongly from £974 million to £1,078 million—a volume increase of about 5.5 per cent. and the first year, incidentally, of more than £1 million of wine duty receipts. The pattern, so far as we can see, is repeating itself this year. The latest figures show that alcohol duties in the first four months of this year rose by 4 per cent. compared with the first four months of 1993, despite pre-Budget forestalling in that year.
When looking at the figures, one must assess how the duty receipts might have moved if the single market had not opened. I do not suggest that the market would have been static. Clearly the economic recovery would be reflected, and is no doubt reflected to some extent, in the figures. There has obviously been an increase in cross-border shopping and smuggling and we are losing some revenue. However, it is clear that there is no acute haemorrhaging of revenue threatening the basic yields of duty.
That is relevant to the decisions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House had to consider in the Budget and in the Finance Bill in recent months, and which we shall have to consider again in the Budget in November. I repeat a point that I made clearly earlier: the extent of cross-border shopping and smuggling is a factor that we have to take into account in arriving at the Budget judgments to recommend to the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, we did that last year and we shall have to do it in every future Budget.
There is a beguiling argument which I only wish were true, but which does not stand up to examination. That is the idea that lower duty rates on alcoholic drinks would lead to higher duty and tax yields and would thus compensate for the loss of revenue. That depends on the level of cross-border shopping and smuggling that one believes is taking place now. It also depends on the additional sales to be expected as a result of cuts in duty being passed on in cheaper prices.
Even if we take the largest estimates that anyone has advanced for the present scale of cross-border activity, and generous assumptions about extra sales, the inescapable fact is that large cuts in duty—sufficient to make a material difference to cross-border prices—would cost a great deal more revenue than would be recovered from increased or repatriated sales. Nothing that I say today should be taken as a hint about future Budgets, but we cannot expect to recover the yield by increased or repatriated sales. For the sake of illustration, if we were to cut the alcohol duty rates

in half, there would still be an incentive to cross-border shopping. It would no doubt be reduced, but it would certainly not be eliminated.
The cost in duty and VAT from halving our alcohol rates would be about £2.3 billion in a full year—five times the highest estimate by the brewers of the present duty and VAT losses. A big cut in duty, if passed on to consumers, would clearly increase sales, but not by nearly enough to recover the duty lost. Looking at the duty alone, to recover a cut of half the duty would involve doubling the total sales of alcohol in this country. The secondary effects on income and corporation tax would not bridge more than a very small fraction of that gap.
The Chancellor and the House must decide what other taxes to raise if it is desired to finance a major cut in alcohol duty rates. We must also reflect on the other consequences of a big cut in alcohol prices if one assumes that that would lead to a substantial increase in consumption. I accept entirely that there is a major dilemma. The single market will not go away and consumers are entitled to benefit from it. We, the British Parliament, however, are also entitled to decide British taxes. I do not believe that our constituents would thank us for cutting alcohol duty and raising VAT or income tax to pay for it.
The cross-border effects are one of the factors that the Chancellor, in every future Budget, will need to consider when framing the Budget judgments. That has been the case in respect of the Budgets in which I have been involved and it was so before that. It may perhaps be an increasingly influential factor, but the arithmetic is inescapable and necessarily difficult for us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to his concern—it is one that I share—about distance sales. Apparently, a Commission official suggested not long ago that distance sales of excise products would attract duty at the rate applicable in the country of the seller, not the country of the purchaser. In other words, if a purchaser in the United Kingdom buys alcohol from a seller in France through an agent or over the telephone, French duty would be payable and not British duty.
I am reliably informed that that is legally wrong. Goods must be accompanied across the border by the purchaser and be for his or her personal use if the duty in the country of origin only is to be payable. It was not the intention of the European Community agreement to permit such a loophole and it is not the obvious meaning of the relevant text. The European Commissioner responsible, Mrs. Scrivener, confirmed this opinion immediately after the story first appeared.
I assure my hon. Friend that we take very seriously the suggestion that the agreement might be distorted in that way. If any lawyers try to say that, regardless of the intention of the agreement, the words can be interpreted in that way, we shall resist it strongly in the courts. If necessary, we shall seek a modification of the agreement so as to make the intention clear. We have the support of other member states in this view because they know what was agreed, and in any case they do not want their various revenues from excise goods affected by such actions either.
I do not doubt that I have the support of everyone in the trade, as well as that of my hon. Friend and the House, in that matter. I also have no doubt that we have the same support in tackling smuggling. Whatever the exact extent may be, the smuggling of excise goods for resale is illegal, and selling excise goods here which have evaded UK duty


is also illegal. Such acts are punishable by fines, confiscation of the goods concerned and any vehicle involved, and by imprisonment in serious cases.
Customs and Excise has the Government's full backing in bringing smugglers to justice. So far, the new breed of excise verification officers that we have created have detected 1,600 cases of smuggling alcoholic drinks and tobacco, involving more than £2.3 million in duty. In most cases—particularly first offences—Customs has dealt with the offenders by seizing the goods. In 247 cases, it has also seized the vehicles. I need not tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a powerful deterrent in itself, but it also has the added bonus of not tying up the precious time of the courts.
Prosecutions have taken place in the more serious cases and, so far, 85 individuals have been prosecuted. The penalties imposed by the courts have included imprisonment, a number of suspended sentences, community service orders and the like, but mainly fines. There are more cases before the courts and the wheels of justice are grinding towards them. It may be a while before the full fruits of the Customs and Excise effort are fully visible.
I assure my hon. Friend that our actions against smugglers are increasing. Since 1 April—the beginning of the financial year—101 detections have been made in the Dover area alone. These have been made mainly in the port. About 10 per cent. of these cases involved people from the north west. A high proportion of them involved the use of vans, but one must not assume, as some do, that all vans automatically carry illegal alcohol. There is a lot of regular traffic in newspapers and magazines and so on using the same kind of vans, which is perfectly legal.
Those caught smuggling face fines often of thousands of pounds. So far, the biggest fine imposed was £8,000 and the longest sentence of 15 months was given at the Maidstone crown court recently. However, that case involved cigarettes.
The Customs effort is not confined to the ports. It is a crime to deal in goods which have evaded payment of UK duty, and a lot of effort is devoted to catching criminals in that area. Any licensee who buys or sells alcohol without paying United Kingdom duty risks his licence and his job or tenancy, so the legitimate trade is rightly very wary of becoming involved with that illegal activity. They and

others are keen in many cases to help Customs with intelligence. We have recently set up a hotline—0800 901901—and I am glad to say that a considerable number of calls came in during the first few days of its operation with valuable intelligence, every bit of which is being followed up.
The excise verification officers have the specialist task and are dedicated to it, but in a way every Customs officer is involved. For example, VAT officers have been trained to look out for indications of sales of illicit alcohol and tobacco, and they visit a large number of traders. All customs and excise intelligence is co-ordinated because information which at first seems to be about one criminal activity may actually be about another.

Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust approach on distance selling and also on smuggling, although I do not altogether welcome what he has said on the possible reduction in beer duty. Is he looking at other approaches to tackling the growing problem of the importation of beer into this country?

Sir John Cope: I am prepared to look at every approach, but the primary approach must be to catch the smugglers. The excise verification officers are the front line, but everyone is involved. I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Customs and Excise is working hard on this and has my full backing. It has been doing that work for literally hundreds of years, but it obviously has new relevance and has been given a new impetus at present.
My hon. Friends will not expect me to anticipate the decisions of the Chancellor about future Budgets and future rates of beer taxation, and I certainly have no intention of doing so. It is the lot of excise Ministers to be attacked by brewers, of course, and I know enough about their campaign from my hon. Friends and also from newspapers. It may be popular for the latter to campaign for a cut in the beer duty, but I do not think that it would be similarly popular to campaign for a rise in income tax or in VAT to finance it. Even when we can afford to reduce the duty, the Chancellor of the day will need to balance the priorities. In those circumstances, it seems important—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.